Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Sodankylä Old Church

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Bruxton talk 14:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Sodankylä Old Church

(
)
The Sodankylä Old Church in 2019
The Sodankylä Old Church in 2019

Created by Juustila (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sodankylä Old Church; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Starting the review now. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria. New. Long enough. No concerns with Earwig nor with tone. Some amount of copy edits might be required. Will note them below. Image is a nice one. Image seems to have been uploaded as "own work" with geo-location enabled. So, no concerns there. QPQ not needed. Ktin (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Hook
    • Hook says that the church is "one of Finland's oldest and well preserved wooden churches". The source however says [the church] ... is one of Finland’s oldest preserved wooden churches. So, basis this source, the first part of the hook is quoted and the latter part (i.e. "well preserved") is a subjective opinion that is not born by the quote. Furthermore, when we say the statement in the latter part of the hook, we should quote it to a source that is independent. Currently, the source links to the city's tourism website if I understand it correct -- that might not be the best source.
    • Consider retaining the first part and remove the subjectivity in the second part unless we are able to source it to a reliable independent source. e.g. "the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches"

Article feedback below. The article is largely good with some improvement feedback below.

  • Lede
    • "The church is considered one of the best preserved wooden churches in Finland" -- According to whom? Can we tie that statement to Finnish Heritage Agency? If so, this can be a compelling statement. However, if we are saying "According to Visit Lapland, the church is considered one of the best preserved wooden churches in Finland," that might not be compelling enough
  • History
    • Some amount of copyediting might be required here across the section.
    • You could start with when construction began and when it was completed, rather than starting with when construction was completed and then coming back three sentences later to say when construction might have started.
    • "Valuable persons" -- consider rewording this phrase. Prominent people? Consider adding a few examples of these prominent people
    • "is best preserved as a mummy" -- reword this phrase
    • "renovated again in 1979–1980 and 1992–1995" -- if you are giving a range of dates consider using "between" instead of "in"
  • Structure
    • "Medieval tradition" -- is there further qualification that can be added here? e.g. Medieval tradition of xxx
    • "Exceptional way" -- I do not know the architectural concepts here, but, are we trying to say the planking is different from normal rafter structure. If so, consider rewording
  • Other Notes
    • Can we add any notes on what the church is used for currently? The Visit Sodankyla website says it is not open for visitors currently.[1] Any details that you can add?

Handing this back to the nominator. Ktin (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sodankylä Old Church". Visit Sodankylä. 2023-01-10. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
@Juustila: Please address the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: Does the above address your concerns? Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the nudge @Z1720:. I made a few copyedits on the article. I am going to make a minor edit to the hook.
If this is alright, I will go ahead and mark this approved. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm okay with this. Thanks. Juustila (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Approved. Ktin (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reopening per concerns at WT:DYK – some more reliable sources for the hook (and excising the non-reliable sources) would be good before re-approval. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Copying my note from WT:DYK.I agree with @Theleekycauldron:'s note in spirit. In fact I had noted that in my review. That said, the revised hook is a very basic one which is hard not to prove. The hook basically says, the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches. The fact is so-basic, that the mere existence of the church (in whatever active capacity) is sufficient to prove the hook. And, the tourism department website proves its existence, in my opinion. That said, if folks want to get a WP:RS source other than the tourism department website, and the nominator is willing, I will not stand in the way. Cheers.
  • Copying my note from WT:DYK. Another issue is that the final paragraph, from "The church does not have roof chairs" appears to be an uncredited machine translation of the Finnish article. TSventon (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
The preceding paragraph, from "Stylistically, the church represents" also appears to be an uncredited machine translation of the Finnish article. TSventon (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the note and the findings TSventon. I am tagging @Juustila: to address some of these. Ktin (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
In parallel, wanted to ask about the specific guidance we should be sharing with the nominators on this topic. I am somewhat unclear, because in the latest Vector 2022 skin, there seems to be a push to translate Wikipages to multiple languages using machine translations as a starting action. I am assuming that the skin / workflow asks folks to do their edits / checks after the machine translation is generated? Ktin (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Ktin, what guidance we should share with nominators is possibly a question for WT:DYK, but the guidance I was using was Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects, which says that content copied from Wikipedia, including translations, should be attributed in an edit summary. This has not been done, but can be done retrospectively. Help:Translation discourages unedited machine translations. I generally use Google translate, where the quality varies by language: Swedish to English often works well, Finnish to English needs more checking as seen here. I use the old skin, which also suggests translating articles using the Wikipedia:Content translation tool. If you are translating from English, the tool incorporates machine translation and asks you to review it. If you are translating into English, the tool does not incorporate machine translation. TSventon (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Juustila please have a look at the comments from TSventon at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

TSventon (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If others think this is a better hook, then I give for ALT3 my approval. Juustila (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Juustila I believe that, as it is a government website, the source for my Alt3 is more reliable than the sources for Ktin's Alt2. The problem was the sourcing, not the hook. I have asked at WT:DYK if the sourcing of the article itself is a problem.
I noticed that the two paragraphs of the "Structure" section appeared been machine translated from the Finnish article. Are you aware now that coping within Wikipedia should be acknowledged in an edit summary, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Translating from other language Wikimedia projects? I have changed a few of the words based on the Swedish version. Is the rest of the article in your own words? Copying or translating content from other sources may be a Wikipedia:Copyright violation. TSventon (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Partly it is in my own words. I admit that I have used a translator to help me in some parts, but nevertheless I tried to compose them to look like myself, because I do know that a direct translation alone is not enough as it is. Are you trying to say that today it is no longer allowed to take anything from other wiki sites ​​and translate them into English, regardless of how much factual information (with source materials) related to the topic it contains? I'm just trying to be useful and to join others in providing information! Is that wrong? Juustila (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Juustila it is fine to copy or translate from other Wikipedias, I did it myself with Block-pillar church. However you are required to use an edit summary such as Some content in the first edit was translated from the existing Finnish Wikipedia article at ; see its history for attribution., which I have now done for you. You should review the translated text for errors, but it doesn't have to be perfect. I changed some odd translations of architectural terms here, let me know if you disagree with anything.
Also theleekycauldron asked for the non-reliable sources to be excised. I think that means lifeinlapland.com and tiedonportailla.fi. TSventon (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Very well then. In the future, I'll try to remember to mention if an article I've created is a translation. Juustila (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
  • @Ktin and Juustila:, I have now removed lifeinlapland.com and tiedonportailla.fi, unfortunately I couldn't find a better source for the oldest preserved wooden churches in Finland. Juustila are you happy with this, if not please can you suggest an alternative? TSventon (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm okay with this. Juustila (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Folks, I have been offwiki for some days with IRL priorities. I will take a look at this one in a couple of days, if that is alright. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin, Juustila, TSventon, and Theleekycauldron: Hi all, looking in in the interests of getting this moving. Your best source is:

It will pretty much cover the original hook and almost everything else you could want; no need for primary sources, SPS websites any more. Perhaps something like:

  • ALT4: ... that Sodankylä Old Church, (pictured), was built in 1689, renovated in the 20th century, and has been described as "the best preserved in its original form in Finland"?

Can send a pdf of the piece if required; will re-review if required. ——Serial Number 54129 17:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, Ktin, and Juustila: I have proposed a hook combining Serial Number 54129's and my suggestions. The relevant quote is Sodankylä wooden church is a so called block pillar church, of which is best preserved in its original form in Finland. so I think that the quote in the hook is misleading without mentioning that Sodankylä is a block pillar church. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the relevance of it being a block-pillared church; it#'s still the oldest surviving church of any kind. I think adding additional info of a purely technical nature reduces the hook's impact and is liable to confuse the reader. ——Serial Number 54129 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I would not mind a simpler hook, but the quote is about block pillar churches and it is misleading to imply that a part of it is about churches in general. Sodankylä is not "the oldest surviving church of any kind" as there are earlier surviving block-pillar churches. There are even earlier medieval stone churches in Finland. TSventon (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin: do you have time to take another look at this? TSventon (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure thing. I have been away for a bit. Will give it a look in a day. Ktin (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey folks. I am sorry to add more options at this stage, but, how about one of these two hooks and we move forward?
ALT6: ... that Sodankylä Old Church (pictured) is one of twelve surviving block-pillar churches in Finland?
ALT7: ... that Sodankylä Old Church (pictured) is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches in Finland?
I think both of these are quite simple for any reader. @TSventon, Serial Number 54129, and Juustila:. What do you folks think? Also, please can one of you help me with the English translation that helps validate ALT6? Ktin (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin:, welcome back. ALT6 is my Alt3 above except it should say Finland and Sweden, as one of the churches is in Sweden. Or it could say eleven surviving BPSs in Finland. I gave a reference in Swedish Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190822053635/https://www.kulttuuriymparistomme.fi/sv-FI/Aktuellt/Artiklar/Platser_for_tro_och_forestallningar/Blockpelarkyrkan_ar_en_finlandsk_special(38198), which lists the 12 surviving churches at the end, which translate as
The block pillar churches in order of age
Vörå church 1626–27 (extended to cross church 1777)
Muhos church 1634
Torneå church 1684–86
Tervola old church 1687–89
Kempele old church 1688–1691
Sodankylä old church 1689
Ulrika Eleonora church in Kristinestad 1700
Jukkasjärvi 1726 (Norrland)
Alastaro church 1754 (originally in Loimaa)
Utajärvi church 1762
Temmes church 1767
Ullava 1783
Alt7 also needs a source. The same source also says that The oldest block pillar churches are also among the oldest timber buildings in the country. Sodankylä old church is sixth out of eleven, so a little later than the oldest BPCs. TSventon (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks TSventon for pointing out that ALT6 is in essence ALT3. With all of this, I am thinking we go with ALT7 and keep it simple. If you are good, I will mark ALT7 as approved. Ktin (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Go for it, age is more interesting than blockiness  ;) ——Serial Number 54129 11:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
ALT7 is okay for me. Juustila (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin:, ALT7 is okay for me. I have added the fact to the lead. TSventon (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks folks. Marking ALT7 as approved. Also, wanted to give a shout-out to all of you for the collaborative mindset that each one of you displayed here in working this nomination that went rather long. Nicely done. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin, TSventon, and Juustila: Promoting this ALT7 to prep 6 which is Easter. Just wondering, I do not see a denomination or religion in the article. I did not see a mention of Christian, Lutheran, Catholic etc? Christianity is a portal in the article. Bruxton (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Sodankylä_Old_Church&oldid=1216171662"