Template:Did you know nominations/Waldemar Hammenhög

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: rejected by Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Waldemar Hammenhög

(

)

... that the Swedish novelist Waldemar Hammenhög (pictured) later in life spoke publicly about issues related to alcoholism?

Created by Bruzaholm (talk). Self-nominated at 12:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC).

Article is new, long enough and inline cited. There is no QPQ. Are you a new contributor to DYK with less than five prior nominations? There are some tendency to close paraphrasing problems in the article. The paragraph that starts with Torken follows SNL a bit to closely; and the first sentence is also badly "translated" and somewhat confusing in English. The last paragraph is too close to the Aftonbladet source. Also, I didn't see the provided inline source back up the the claim regarding the use of his "pseudonym" Hammenhög. Hook is backed up by a reliable source, but the "later" part should probably be rewritten somewhat. Photo is from Commons and appear to have adequate licence. (Pinging Bruzaholm). Iselilja (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the DYK nomination. I cannot find any inline/online reference to his pseudonym turning official surname, but the issue is discussed in an interview with Hammanhög in Bonnier's literary magazine of 1932. The change of name from Anderson to Hammenhög in 1931 is also verified in the Swedish name database. However, I cannot find these sources online, so if the name issue is a problem, let's just erase it from the article. --Bruzaholm (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. The reference for the pseudonym is now fine. It's totally fine to use off-line sources. (Inline sources aren't the same as online sources; it's about providing the info in footnotes in the text, which you do). So, don't be afraid of using off-line sources if you have access to off-line sources that are better than online sources. There are still some close paraphrasing issues in the two last sentences of the Life and Work sentences (too close to SNL). Also the first paragraph of the "Later life and Death" section still has such issues (too close in wording to the Aftonbladet source), so you need to rewrite it slightly. Sorry for being so nitpicky; but we are required to be very careful about close paraphrasing in DYK reviews. Have you written DYKs before? The reason I ask is that editors with more than 5 DYKs need to provide a QPQ (review of another DYK nomination), while users with less than 5 DYKs don't. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have five successful DYK nominations. --Bruzaholm (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine. But then you need to provide a QPQ (your own review of another editor's nomination). I can't see you have done that. Iselilja (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been two weeks without a response from the nominator, who needs to do a quid pro quo (QPQ) review of another DYK nomination. I have just added a note to Bruzaholm's talk page requesting a reply here on progress. The close paraphrasing issues identified above will need to be addressed, too, if they haven't been already. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)