Template:Did you know nominations/Gustaf Nyström


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Gustaf Nyström

 * ... that Finnish architect Gustaf Nyström (pictured) has been described as a "legendary teacher of architecture"? Source: Eriksson, Patrick. "Nyström, Gustaf" (in Swedish). Uppslagsverket Finland


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ding ware

Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC).


 * [[Image:Symbol question.svg|25px]] Hello! Your submission of Gustaf Nyström at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * From the glance of an eye, the article looks well--written, but if I see anything that needs to be modified I'll let you know. A couple of things: that article needs needs more references and citations.  There are only two sources culled from.  And, there are a bunch of statements that do not have citations.  Remember that an article needs to be well-sourced in order to be displayed on the DYK page.  So, in order to make get the article up to DYK level, it needs: 1) more sources 2) more in-line citations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Garagepunk66 for the constructive review! I've added some more sources and tried to specify more precisely what sentence comes from what source rather than just end-of-paragraph citations. Let me know if you think it needs further elaboration. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but the idea that there's something wrong with there being "only two sources" is completely wrong. If two sources (or even just one) provide what's needed, then that's sufficient. Article quality isn't dependent on a count of sources.  E Eng  20:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, but my remarks were only in regard for making the article its best, and I notice that Yakikaki has gladly added more sources and citations, so I think the article is almost ready. We could still put some citations next to the statements about his stylistic influences when he was teaching.  I would assume that they come from the first reference, but I'm not sure--I am not familiar with the Swedish language the sources are written in.  I would say that once we have those statements cited, the article will be ready. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All fine, as long no one says again that in order to qualify for DYK an article "needs" more sources.  E Eng  01:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not as familiar with the DYK process. I just want to make sure that the article looks extra-good when everyone sees it.  I think it is now very close to being there.  Once we get those statements cited, it'll be ready to roll. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks EEng for your comments, yes I know this as well and was considering replying as you did but then thought what the heck, the article may benefit from a bit more sources after all. I hope it looks OK for you now Garagepunk66? Best regards to you both, Yakikaki (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm not the reviewer. I just dropped in to comment re the # of sources.  E Eng  21:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the reviewer here. And, I don't know why we're discussing that already settled matter, rather than focusing on what is best for the article in terms of content and development.  I want very much to approve this article for DYK, but I think that we need to put those issues squarely behind us--then I can proceed with the DYK.  Do we understand? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, when you put it that way, No, I really don't understand. If you want to review, then review. Nobody's stopping you. And quit clobbering the Do Not Write Below This Line line.  E Eng  02:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am doing the review for the purpose of helping this article get ready to be showcased on the front page of Wikipeida, and I think we should be united around the goal of achieving that end. So, there should no longer be any disagreement. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg: The good news is that the article is now ready for DYK, so let's just be glad and not worry about all that other stuff. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

, : Hi, I came across this nomination in my prep-building endeavors. I think you did a good job encouraging the page creator to add more sources,. As this is a very rules-oriented project, the real reason we want more sources is Rule D12: Multiple sources are generally preferred, though more leeway may be given for more obscure topics. The original nomination, with only one source verifying that the subject was "legendary", was far from adequate. Yoninah (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you make a point of it, I disagree. A Finnish architect is just the sort of "obscure topic" (from the point of view of the English WP) for which just one or two sources are acceptable. By putting "legendary" in quotes the hook adds appropriate distance, making it clear this evaluation is just one (or two) sources' opinion.  E Eng  01:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg  I just gave the article a look-see and notice that most sources are online. Even though they're in Swedish, you can run them through Google Translate to see if there's any close paraphrasing. I put the hook fact in quotes in the article because that is copied from the source. I'm having trouble with my internet connection right now and cannot check the other sources, but that should be done before the article is passed. Also, you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll do the check tomorrow and get back to you. Thanks.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svgReady for DYK: I just checked the translated sources, and there does not appear to be any close paraphrasing. Yakikaki took care to word things in a different way--the facts were the same, but the words were different.  He organized the Wikipedia text differently, and in the isolated instances where quotes were used, he used quotation marks and cited the sources.  Looking over the article and the hook, everything seems now to satisfy all of the DYK requirements: the article is new and long enough, and the hook is just right.  Everything seems to be within policy, so the article is now ready to enter the queue. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)