Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wennergren

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Charles Wennergren[edit]

(
)

Charles Wennergren

5x expanded by Lajbi (talk). Self nominated at 19:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC).
  • Hook too long at 272 ch.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not the version you see in the edit window, whose characters should be counted, but the rendered version. When I nominated it, that version was 200 character long, but an editor added "(pictured)", which I think is needed, and so it slightly slipped over the limit (but not by 72 ch.). I'll rephrase it in a new ALT version. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You're correct: it's what shows that counts (including spacing), not the underlying code. However, the hook is a bit choppy, and I think you could safely lose the "Parliamentary Ombudsman" bit to give the hook more punch; here's a 176-character version (which counts as 165 when "(pictured)" is excluded):
  • Nomination needs a full review. —BlueMoonset (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The article is new enough, long enough and was nominated in time. It is written in a neutral way, but my concern is the hook - if the only thing that is interesting about this guy is to write about his son, then maybe we shouldn't approve it for DYK. I'd rather have a hook that he first became Swedish international champion aged only 22, or that he won the Swedish single championship six times. (though it might be an idea to elaborate in the article what the difference between those two are.) Mentoz86 (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, a wikilink would do. Regarding the hook, I would have approved it if this was a two-article hook, but I believe there are more interesting facts about the tennis-player than writing about his son. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I think this is more focused on Wennergren. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • ALT3 needs review. (Changed "father" to "fathered".) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that was a brain fart alright. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
The hook is better, but I'm not that confident about the sourcing. There is a "who is who" source that lists Charles with a son named "Bertil" born 25, and other sources that confirms that a person named "Bertil Wennergren" was this and that, but no sources connects those two. For all we know, there could be two people with the same name. Do we have any source that confirms that the tennis player was the father to the Justice of the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court? Mentoz86 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
They also have the same birth year, included in the article (one is at "who is who" the other here). Usually these two rules out any possibility for being mistaken. It's also a very rare surname as you can see in "who is who". Although I understand if it convinces you, but I cannot present birth papers. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, the possibility that it is correct is very high, but as no source actually supports the fact that the tennis player was the father to the justice it is WP:SYNTH, and you could argue that you should remove it from the article, but atleast we shouldn't have a hook on the main page with original synthesesis. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It's all good, you're probably right. Although many biography entries in Wikipedia work like this. It is hard-to-impossible to find e.g. newspaper articles that enumerates someone's descendants and their occupations so you have to put it together puzzle by puzzle to have a family coverage on them. Most of tha cases the same name popping up in different articles is enough:
Let's take July 2nd's main page featured article as an example, Alec Douglas-Home. It claims "Among the couple's younger children was the playwright William Douglas-Home". There's a ref to it that says "He spent his childhood among a family of five brothers one of whom was the playwright, William Douglas-Home". No other details just the name, no birth date STILL the wikipage has his name wikilinked to his own article, although it could be another William Douglas-Home, who was a playright (note that William Douglas-Home's Early life section is unreferenced and wikipages don't serve as refs to each other anyway). So there's no proof they are related and not just a coincidence. They bare a rare name but they could have been born as Smiths. It works like this here based on common sense. In my case on the contrary we have at least two matching birth dates, which I rank more than matching professions. Maybe not the best example I didn't search for long but I'm 100% sure I can dig out another better one from the FA pool within minutes.
Sorry for the long reply. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, if there are no reliable sources that confirms the family relation, we shouldn't use own research to find them out. And the last we should do is to post own research on the main page, no matter what have been done in the past. I'm not saying you should remove it from the article (even though you could argue that it should've been removed), but that you need another hook if this nomination should be approved. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
With all these delays and uphelds I rather withdraw my nomination. I don't think his tennis matches are interesting enough. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • How about a different hook? I think the juxtaposition of his tennis success with a mundane career is interesting, particularly in this era of sports celebrities:
  • ALT4 ... that Charles Wennergren (pictured) of Sweden, a six-time national tennis champion and two-time Olympian, worked in supervision of the management of bank savings? --Orlady (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Since no progress has been made in the past five weeks (and one week from the last comment) I regretfully withdraw my nomination again. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this nomination was waiting for input from you. What did you think of the ALT4 hook? If you think it's valid, we can flag this as needing a new review. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
When ALT3 was posted by another editor it didn't need my approval to be validated. I didn't want to disrespect others work (ALT4) so if Orlady had already taken his time and proposed a new hook, why not give it a shot? Although I consider it the last chance from my part, so if it gets resent again for whatever reason you can automaticly delist this nomination. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 06:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
ALT3 was merely a suggested rewording of the original hook. ALT4 is a new hook fact. I suggested the ALT4 hook based on what the article says. It appears to be consistent with the Swedish source, but I don't know the language and I don't know the Swedish government system that he was part of. Since you added the information, I'm assuming that you know more about the subject matter and the sources than I do, and therefore can say whether or not the hook is a valid interpretation. If the article author doesn't stand behind the hook, it wouldn't be right for a reviewer to "assume in good faith" that the hook fact is valid. --Orlady (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Anyway I appreciate your contribution and am willing to give it another run. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed for ALT4. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
    • - Hook-fact in ALT4 is mentioned in the article, where it has an inline citation that supports the claim. I've done some copyediting to the article, I hope I didn't mess up anything: when talking about doubles in tennis isn't it better to write "name1 and name2" than "name1-name2"? For further improvements, I would suggest adding how Wennergren performed at the Olympics (which is his only claim to notability, afaik) to the body of the article. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have pulled this one from the queue as I think the hook is mundane - it basically states that a Swedish tennis champion worked as a banker, so what? Also, while the article mentions his Olympic career in the lead, it fails to detail his Olympic career or even mention it as far as I can see in main body text, an issue that needs to be rectified before this one can be promoted.
I have taken a look at the article and admittedly there is not much in the way of hook material, so I suggest we just stick to the basics:
I added content about his Olympic career in the main body of the article. I guess we need a fresh review now. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, thank you Orlady. I have added your name to the credits. Gatoclass (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Charles_Wennergren&oldid=1022407637"