Template:Did you know nominations/Nólsoyar Páll

Nólsoyar Páll
Created/expanded by Yngvadottir (talk). Self nom at 20:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that Nólsoyar Páll had to illegally sell 2,600 sweaters to a Norwegian to finance a deputation to Copenhagen to plead for lifting of the Danish monopoly on trade with the Faroe Islands?


 * This is going to get some additional references and details added, plus GoogleBooks links to at least some of the book references, but here's the deadline and I discovered I had expanded it fivefold, and it would have been a pity to waste that hook fact, so . . . Yngvadottir (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The hook is way too wordy, and a bit confusing. (what's a "deputation" in this context?) Also, I certainly wouldn't claim that he had to commit an illegal act. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are explained by the situation, which was a legal monopoly on trade. All unsanctioned imports and exports were illegal, all trade had to go through one port, and the deputation was to ask for a trial of uncontrolled trade. That's also what the source says: They were refused permission to take the sweaters with them on their ship, then refused permission to have them exported on the first available Monopoly ship (p. 59). "So the 1806 sailing season passed by, and it was June 1807 before the Royndin Friða was able to sail for Copenhagen, Even then, the journey had to be financed partly by the illegal sale of 2,600 sweaters and some other Faroese goods to a Norwegian merchant." (p. 60 - will try to add a GoogleBooks link in the ref.) By my count, the hook is under 200 characters, but I guess "to Copenhagen" could be omitted, although I think it's clearer with it. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Here's the page 60 passage. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear with my previous remark. It's not that there are too many words, its more of a style issue. The sentence structure is, for lack of a better word, clunky. You have to read it repeatedly to parse out exactly what it is saying. Something more like "sold 2,600 sweaters in defiance of the Danish monopoly on trade in order to finance a journey to Copenhagen to ask that the monopoly be lifted?" Or something along those lines. Still not perfect, but a little snappier way of expressing a fairly complicated situation. Maybe leave out why altogether.  The purpose of the hook is to pique the reader's interest, and who wouldn't be curious to learn why selling sweaters would ever be a crime? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the only alt I can come up with is longer and even clunkier, to my mind:
 * ALT1... that Nólsoyar Páll deputation to Copenhagen to plead for suspension of the Danish monopoly on trading with the Faroe Islands had to illegally sell 2,600 sweaters to a Norwegian for financing?
 * Yes, the situation is hard to believe&mdash;the fact that it was illegal and that was the only way to finance the voyage, and that it was a popularly voted deputation, is the point; that straitjacket on earning money is what they were protesting, and that was why the local officials denied them permission . . . . And the fact that it was 2,600 sweaters makes it all the stranger&mdash;and IMO more interesting. Unless one already knows about the Danish monopoly rules and their effect, the hook has to have rather a lot of context packed in.


 * ALT2... that Nólsoyar Páll deputation to Copenhagen to plead for suspension of the Danish monopoly on trading with the Faroe Islands was illegally funded by selling 2,600 sweaters? Pucamann (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that snappy enough? Although by dropping the had to sell imperative makes it weaker, but perhaps let the article explain as backed up by the source.


 * Qpq review now done: Utzon Center, diff. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to stuff too much context into the hook - to the average reader the illegal sweater selling is the intriguing part, so what about something punchier like: either of which which might better encourage people to go to the article to find out why. —S MALL JIM   10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ALT3 ... that in an attempt to open direct trade with his country, Faroese folk hero Nólsoyar Páll  had to illegally sell 2,600 knitted sweaters?
 * ALT4 ... that Faroese folk hero Nólsoyar Páll  had to illegally sell 2,600 knitted sweaters to try to open direct trade with his country?
 * Hmm, good idea, but from my limited knowledge of international law, inaccurate; the Faroese had no authority to open trade, that was the problem.
 * ALT5 ... that Nólsoyar Páll  had to illegally sell 2,600 knitted sweaters to finance a plea for direct trade with the Faroe Islands?
 * (and I've put the "that"s in ALT3 and ALT4 in case they get chosen). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So which have been approved? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * None, and nobody's touched reviewing the expansion itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And which is the currently accepted best wording? I'll take a look at the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Article is fine (AGF on foreign language source). Regarding the hooks, I prefer ALTs 3 and 4. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)