Template:Did you know nominations/Stokkemarke

Stokkemarke

 * ... that the Danish village of Stokkemarke (church in village pictured) contains a soap factory?

Created by Ipigott (talk), Nvvchar (talk). Nominated by Dr. Blofeld (talk) at 15:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC).


 * Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Star Trek: The Manga.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  15:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article created on 3 July, nominated at DYK at 8th. Prose size (text only): 2585 B (413 words) "readable prose size", image is fine. No close paraphrasing/copyvio detected. Hook is not a very interesting one, but, good to go. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 06:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg A village contains a factory? What is remarkable about that? Surely a better hook for this article can be found. Pulled from Prep #4 in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest Alt1 Hook ... that the centrally located church (pictured) in Stokkemarke is dated to 1200 and it has a fine 16th century tower? -- Nvvchar . 18:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg There are problems with Alt1: not only is the sentence not individually sourced, the sources (FN2 and FN3) do not agree as to the church's founding date: one says "ca. 1250" and the other seems to say "1200s" rather than specifically "1200" as given in hook and article; since the article says the town is first mentioned in 1231, having a church from 1200 is seems questionable. Also, since the original FN3 wording is "fra 1200 tallet" for the church and "fra 1500 tallet", either both are on the exact year, or both refer to a century (16th century or 1500s). Using different meanings for similar phrases is less than ideal. Finally, I don't see why "centrally located church" is useful or interesting regarding the church (and the sources don't seem to be quite specific enough to support so definite a location description). I think an ALT2 is in order, plus more specific sourcing. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a word to say that I have taken note of your concerns and will try to address them when I have a bit more time.--Ipigott (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ipigott. Looking forward to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks BlueMoonset for bringing these important points to our attention. I have looked again at the article and agree the dating of the church looked a little confusing. There are in fact several Danish sources which date the church to around 1250. The most reliable is probably the Historisk Atlas which in its "Historie" section states: "Stokkemarke kirke er opført ca. 1250" (...built c. 1250) and in its "Intro" refers to "gotisk sakristi samt våbenhus og tårn" (Gothic sacristy, porch and tower). I have made one or two adjustments in the article and clarified the referencing to avoid any conflicts. It is not usual for the village to be first mentioned in 1231. Valdemar's Census Book is similar to the British Magna Carta in that it listed many communities and properties in the country for purposes of taxation. Additional information about Stokkemarke Church is provided in a separate article. I therefore suggest:


 * Alt2 ... that the church (pictured) in the Danish village of Stokkemarke is dated to the mid-13th century? --Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg ALT2 looks fine to me. Verified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)