Template:Did you know nominations/Altenhus Fortress
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Altenhus Fortress[edit]
... that Christian IV of Denmark-Norway (pictured) had Altenhus Fortress built in the far north of Norway, to secure salmon fisheries and the taxation of indigenous Sami people against Swedish incursions?
:* ALT1:... that Altenhus Fortress in the far north of Norway, was built in part using timber from a demolished church, and was eventually demolished to provide material to build a church?
:* ALT2:... that Christian IV of Denmark-Norway (pictured) had Altenhus Fortress built in 1610, to secure the north of Norway against Swedish incursions?
- ALT3:... that Christian IV of Denmark-Norway (pictured) had Altenhus Fortress built in the far north of Norway, to defend his territorial claims there and secure the salmon fisheries of the Alta River?
- Reviewed: Calayan, Cagayan
Created/expanded by Manxruler (talk). Self nominated at 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
QPQ in the form of extensive commentary on an article that was eventually withdrawn. Article is new and long enough, properly inline cited to online sources (some only accessible for Norwegian IPs). No copyvio/close paraphrasing issues detected. As for the hook, I find the orgininal one to be more interesting but it doesn't totally correspond to a sentence in the article and I can't find a sourced sentence that outright says the fortress was built to secure taxation of Samis (allthough it's clear from the backround paragraph). Maybe include this in the lead and inline source it there. As for language, I am not sure if the comma should be there (?) and I would prefer to simply say "Northern Norway" instead of "far north of Norway" since the sentence is a bit cumbersome. Photo out of copyright; personally I prefer mainpage pics that is a depiction of the direct subject of the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Iselilja. Thanks for the review.
- Point by point:
- 1. I agree that the original hook is probably the better one of the two I first presented.
- 2. I'd prefer not to include refs in the lead. I'll just write an ALT 2 and strike the original hook, if that's okay.
- 3. Like yourself, I'm not a native English speaker, so I think it would be best if we left the comma business to a native English speaker to decide. Looks okay to me.
- 4. I'm not using Northern Norway in the hook for several reasons; a) I've noticed over the years that many non-Norwegians don't know that term, b) using "far north" gets the point of the very northerly location of the fortress across, c) Northern Norway is a quite new invention, according to Asbjørn Jaklin's book Nordlendinger til tusen (page 216) launched in 1894 by the composer Ole Olsen, so I prefer not to use it in this early 17th century context.
- 5. I like the picture, but it's no big deal.
- How about ALT2? Manxruler (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I am fine with ALT2.- @Iselilja How about an ALT3? I have double-checked things and concluded that the sources are clear on that the fortress was about both defending territory, and securing the salmon fisheries (the hook is based on the last part of the "Background" section). Salmon should draw some eyes, right? Manxruler (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think ALT3 is very fine; adds some local colour compared to Alt2 and still easy to read. So now the article should really be good to go. Iselilja (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
