- 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 Rcsprinter123 (state) @ 19:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Anna Karoline
edit
... that Anna Karoline (pictured) was bought by Nordlandsmuseet because she was the only jekt in a somewhat original condition?
- Reviewed: Not a self-nom. Article creator/main author has few DYKs.
Created by Ulflarsen (talk), Manxruler (talk). Nominated by Iselilja (talk) at 10:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
New enough, long enough by far, neutral, sourced, I couldn't detect any copyvio or close paraphrasing; hook is short enough; no QPQ needed, not a self-nom. The source for the hook is available online[1] but as I can't understand Norse, I was unable to find the hook fact in the text. It would be nice if the nominator (or the creator) could give the exact sentence(s) that support the hook. Fram (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reivew. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the fact in the text either; rather it says "preserver one of the old jekts that have sailed in Nordland". I am sorry for this; it was me who suggested the hook at my own initiative. I don't think I notices that there was an online version, so that was unfortunate. Do you want to have another suggestion or will you remove it? Iselilja (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The best thing would be to have another hook, e.g. focusing on "the museum bought the Anna Karoline after their first choice sank?" or something similar. It would be a pity to not have this in DYK, it's a nice article. By the way, have you let the article creators know that the article is at DYK? There is some discussion at WT:DYK at the moment about a similar case, and dropping a note at their talk page (if not yet done) may be prudent. Fram (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will look into it and make a new suggestion soon. It was actually the article's creator who asked me if the article was suitable for DYK since I previously has nominated two other of his articles, so he's well aware that it's nominated, but I never asked him to suggest a hook. I'll notify him again, he's mostly at NOWP. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- The best thing would be to have another hook, e.g. focusing on "the museum bought the Anna Karoline after their first choice sank?" or something similar. It would be a pity to not have this in DYK, it's a nice article. By the way, have you let the article creators know that the article is at DYK? There is some discussion at WT:DYK at the moment about a similar case, and dropping a note at their talk page (if not yet done) may be prudent. Fram (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reivew. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the fact in the text either; rather it says "preserver one of the old jekts that have sailed in Nordland". I am sorry for this; it was me who suggested the hook at my own initiative. I don't think I notices that there was an online version, so that was unfortunate. Do you want to have another suggestion or will you remove it? Iselilja (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- It was quite difficult to find an alternative hook actually. Her «career» as a fishing ship/sailing vessel was pretty normal, so it’s the fact that she is preserved as an example of these kind of vessels which is notable. And regardsless of whether there existed other jekts in original condition at the time AK was bought, she is today the only one that has been preserved per this NRK source (and other sources):
- ...ALT 1 ... that Anna Karoline (pictured) is the only jekt that is preserved in a somewhat original condition?
- Source: NRK (second last paragraph) "Anna Karoline er verdens eneste bevarte originale nordlandsjekt". "Anna Karoline is the world's only preserved original Nordlandsjekt" (Jekt and Nordlandsjekt appears to be used interchangely). I am qualifying "original" a bit; as such things will always be relative.
- Iselilja (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The source confirms the hook, but I wonder what the situation is with Holvikejekta[2] (Jekat Pauline seems to have been restored, not preserved in the original condition, and most other jektas are reconstructions, not originals). Holvikejekta seems to be even better (more original) than Anna karoline[3], although it has lost its mast.[4] I'm not really comfortable promoting a hook that is well-sourced but at least debatable. Fram (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're absolutely right. The issue seems to be that Anna Karoline is the only preserved Nordlandsjekt in original condition; the only one which has sailed in Northern Norway and sailed Northern-Norway - Bergen, the distance the vessel type is most associated with. So, my statement that Nordlandsjekt and jekt is used interchangely was wrong, and the NRK source seems to have done the same mistake as I did. I am sorry for the mess. So what to do now? I seem to have some problem concentration on this article. We can of course use the one you suggested if you're still fine with that
- ...ALT 3 ... that the museum Nordland fylkesmuseum bought the Nordlandsjekt Anna Karoline (pictured) after their first choice Brødrene shipwrecked?
- (Jekt/Nordlandsjekt should preferably also have its own article)
- Iselilja (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you're absolutely right. The issue seems to be that Anna Karoline is the only preserved Nordlandsjekt in original condition; the only one which has sailed in Northern Norway and sailed Northern-Norway - Bergen, the distance the vessel type is most associated with. So, my statement that Nordlandsjekt and jekt is used interchangely was wrong, and the NRK source seems to have done the same mistake as I did. I am sorry for the mess. So what to do now? I seem to have some problem concentration on this article. We can of course use the one you suggested if you're still fine with that
