Template:Did you know nominations/Mink industry in Denmark

Withdrawn from consideration by one of the article creators

Mink industry in Denmark

 * ... that Kopenhagen Fur, located in Copenhagen, is the world's largest fur auction house; annually, it sells approximately 14 million Danish mink skins (pictured)?

Created by Rosiestep (talk), Nvvchar (talk), Dr. Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 13:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go. New enough, long enough. No other issues detected. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Borgman
 * Symbol possible vote.svg There are a few instances of close paraphrasing in the article; compare for example "the wire netted cage is provided with wicker which is a wooden nesting box attached inside the cage where mother minks give birth" with "each wire netting cage has a wooden nesting box attached for mother minks to give birth", or "Farms feed their mink with fish waste collected from the country's fish processing factories" with "mink are fed with fish waste collected from Denmark's fish processing factories". However, more concerning are issues with verifiability/accuracy. To give a couple of examples, the article mentions a 148-year-old fur maker called Jens Christensen, while the source states that Jens leads a 142-year-old house called Birger Christensen; the article states that buyers come from England, but the source says only that English is spoken by buyers (the UK is not the only English-speaking country). The article could also use a good copy-edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Above concerns have been addressed now.-- Nvvchar . 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't. Some (not all) of the specific examples have been changed, but these were examples only. Further examples include citing the statement "now the most modernized among all fur producing nations" to a 1964 source and citing the statement "The auction house, which sells about 25% of the world mink fur, is hard pressed to meet the growing demand, particularly from China where middle class prosperity has peaked" to an article that says that Denmark (not the auction house) produces 25% of mink fur and that the Chinese middle class is growing (not peaked). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've c/e the article. I worked on the issues mentioned; if I didn't catch them all or if others need attention, I'll work on them, too. I thought Kopenhagen Fur was one of two articles within this nom because of the credits, but apparently that's not the case, so I'm removing the credits for the KFur article. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Issues appear to have been settled, looks good to go. -- smaro jit  HD 14:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Still some issues here. Further examples: "Mink, introduced in Germany as a fur animal in the 1920s-30s, was introduced in Denmark some time thereafter" is cited to a source that specifies mid-1920s for Denmark; "winter is cool and the summer is mild" is cited to a source that says that the summer is cool and the winter is mild; "1500 farmers who raise about 15.6 million minks" is cited to a source that says that all Danish fur farmers raise 15.6 million minks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, any better now?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  07:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Some, but the last of those is still off: it's not the cooperative that raises 15.6 million minks, it's all Danish farmers. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, if there is anything stopping this please say so.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article and its corresponding hook are good to go for inclusion in DYK, as Nikkimaria's concerns listed above have been adequately addressed by Dr. Blofeld. The article is long enough, new enough, and meets all the DYK criteria. Let's move this to a prep queue! -- Caponer (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Actually, when Dr. Blofeld asked what was left to do on her talk page, Nikkimaria suggested a thorough examination of sources against article contents, given the problems she'd found to that point doing spot-checks. I have a call out to User:Crisco 1492 and User:Orlady asking their advice in this situation, and think we should wait for their feedback before going forward with an approval, since the concerns still linger. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * [EC] I took a look at this article and most of the sources. I expected that after all the work reported here, the article would be in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, I find myself sharing some of Nikkimaria's concerns. I find that the article is an assemblage of factual statements extracted (and rewworded0 from a variety of sources. The assemblage is not a coherent whole (rather, the various facts are often unconnected) -- and I find that some of the information is misrepresented. When I see this kind of work from a newbie, I'm often inclined to dig in and help fix it, but this is the work of a group of highly experienced article creators... --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworked it. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a distinct improvement. However, I'm still very bothered by the following passage from "History":
 * Mink was introduced as a farm animal in Denmark in the mid-1920s. Escapees are found in Copenhagen's canals and harbours. In the mid 20th century, he Ministry of Agriculture research laboratory at a farm in Zealand. Research studies noted that cool and moist climate, as well as proximity to the sea were the ideal locale for the growth of minks. By 1944, the first batch of mink had been bred from a Danish research station. By 1947, model housing complexes were made ready by the trade association.
 * The first sentence is fine, as far as it goes.
 * The second sentence is a non sequitur. From sources 1 and 5 I learned that American mink (escapes from captivity) began to appear in the wild in Denmark as early as the 1930s, were well-established in Denmark by the 1960s, and are an invasive-species problem around Europe. That's much more important (and interesting) than the fact that there are some around Copenhagen. Also, it's relevant to the modern industry (not a detail from the 1920s), particularly in view of indications (e.g., ) that the problem possibly could be eliminated by keeping the minks penned up more effectively. Furthermore, this Nobanis factsheet would be a much better source than the travel guide that is currently cited.
 * The third sentence isn't a sentence.
 * The fourth sentence is misleading. My reading of the source led me to understand that some time before World War II, Danish government agricultural officials identified the Danish climate as good for mink production. Although not stated in so many words in the source, it's fairly clear that this was based on review of available information about mink, not a finding from hands-on research by Danish scientists.
 * The last two sentences in the passage totally misrepresent the source. (Read it.) --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed all but the first sentence, which you state is fine. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any better now? The concerns with this article have been most extraordinary. I'm not sure many would bother nominating articles which have this many apparent problems if they had the chance again!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say. I'm flabbergasted that your team would eviscerate an article to this extent, rather than fixing the issues, just so you can pick up a DYK credit. I know that we often trim content from an article due to sourcing problems (for example, if an old article that was recently expanded includes statements that are unsourced, and we can't tell where they came from or verify them), but that's not the case here. This is a strongly reliable source, in English, and freely available online, and the content was a significant part of the article. As for the concerns expressed in the review, most of us would far rather confront quality issues during the review process than after a hook reaches the main page. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Orlady, I'm unclear what you're referring to when you say "eviscerate". The last edit I made removed 3 sentences (sentenced which bothered you). Obviously, this is a team effort and the team has made many edits so maybe there's a concern with something else. As regards to your statement about "just so you can pick up a DYK credit", I'm offended. I've spent a lot of time on this article, as have others, with research, writing, and editing. In so doing, I've learned a bit about mink production in Denmark, and I've exposed at least a few others to the topic... and that is why I work on articles such as this and why I nom them at DYK. Please do remember there's a person sitting at this computer who's trying to do the right thing. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I said "eviscerate" because I perceive that recent edits to save the DYK nomination have removed a lot of the guts of the article. In total bytes, the current article is 1/3 shorter than it was on 5 July. In prose length, more than 40% of the content has been removed. IMO, the earlier removal of statements like "In 1986, when Denmark was the second largest mink producer, behind the United States, it was noted that Danish women were rarely seen wearing mink" were good improvements because these were isolated factoids that lacked meaningful context. Additionally, the removal of disjunct factoids such as "Escapees are found in Copenhagen's canals and harbours" seemed reasonable because the information is somewhat peripheral to the subject of the Danish mink industry, although I would have preferred to see the topic of mink escapees covered in more detail, based on more extensive coverage found in more reliable sources (sources which I had linked to here) than the travel guide. What particularly bothered me about the most recent removals of content was that (1) these edits removed the discussion of why Denmark introduced and promoted mink farming as a major economic activity in the first place (this seems like a significant topic in describing the country's leadership in this industry), and (2) the edits removed all content sourced to one of the stronger sources cited in the article (i.e., the New Scientist article). There is still some solid information here about the Danish mink industry (along with some semi-peripheral content like the statement "Mink give birth to their litter of generally five offspring in the nesting boxes; they also feed the litter in the nesting boxes"), but the article is a mere shadow of what it could have been if there had been some effort to address the substance of the critical comments raised here. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, that's the last straw. Bore off Orlady. We've had enough of your whining. Withdrawing DYK nom, happy now? And no, that's why you've not seen me personally bending over backwards to please you Borelady. I frankly care much less about getting my DYK credit than you think. Your excessive badgering is enough to put anybody off contributing to DYK. You have a problem with it, why don't you fix it instead of turning up your nose at everything like an elephant with flees up its nose. There's a line and you've crossed it. Enough. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)