Template:Did you know nominations/Grönsö Manor

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Grönsö Manor

(

)

Grönsö Manor

~~... that the oldest commercial orchard (founded in 1623) still operating in Sweden is at Grönsö Manor (pictured)?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John I Ernuszt

5x expanded by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC).

Good expansion of an interesting house, thank you! All Swedish sources accepted AGF. Hook: please word with the manor at the beginning, then the orchard thing, - you don't want people to click on orchard but the manor ;) - Article: I wonder why the infobox has the alternative spelling. Please move the image to below the infobox, sqeezing text between two images is not the best idea. Read again and perhaps change some sentence constructions to "more English", for example:

"At the place of the current estate there was at least since the Middle Ages a small village; during the 16th century it consisted of five farms." while I'd suggest "The site of the current estate was a small village at least since the Middle Ages, consisting of five farms in the 16th century." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The image is nice and licensed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda Arendt for this very constructive review! I have tried to re-write the article into more readable prose. I also moved the image (though personally I think it looks better the other way). I also made the spelling in the infobox consistent with the rest of the article (Grönsöö is a more archaic form, although it can also be used). For alternative hook, how about:

Alt 1: ~~... that Grönsö Manor (pictured) has the oldest commercial orchard (founded in 1623) still operating in Sweden?~~ Yakikaki (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all and a good ALT, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

So sorry to do this, but I've pulled this from prep due to the sourcing. Yakikaki and Gerda Arendt perhaps one, or both, of you can help clarify this. I was running the source through Google translate. If you've noticed the WP:DYK section "Superlatives", I was trying to find a way to avoid the possible argument over the word "oldest". The source does say what the hook does, that it's the oldest. I was thinking maybe adding, "according to...." whatever the source is. But the source is Grönsöö Castle, In fact two of the three sources are Grönsöö Castle. So, I think that's a WP:PRIMARY source. Nice web site, but it's their own website. I think it's best to pull this hook at this time, until an independent source can be found for this article. — Maile (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope for Yakikaki for a source, but am not keen myself in superlatives, - could be simply

Alt 2: ~~... that Grönsö Manor (pictured) has an operating orchard founded in 1623?~~ --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! You're quick! I'm fine with ALT2. But I think we need to do something about the sourcing on the article. — Maile (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, I'll have to address this when I get back. Yakikaki (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Maile and sorry for this rather late answer, but as I wrote I've been on vacation. I support Gerda Arendt's suggestion for ALT 2, and have changed the sentence in the article to "The manor's orchard still produces apples today, which according to the present owners make it Sweden's oldest commercial orchard." which I hope will be a good solution. Let me know what you think. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is that you are using the orchard's own website for your sourcing. Please find independent sourcing. — Maile (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not, there's also the book source. Yakikaki (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Two of your three sources are the website, which bring the article into question. But since you feel differently, I'm going to step aside and let another person have a look at this. Uninvolved opinion needed of the sourcing. Also a review of ALT2 is needed. — Maile (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Is your concern regarding the article as a whole or specifically about the orchard part? Yakikaki (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I've been confusing you. My concern was two-fold:

The hooks, but I'm OK with Gerda's ALT2
The article sourcing. And the reason I'm so concerned about that, can be found on any number of threads at WT:DYK. They're been yanking hooks and dissecting the articles on sourcing and accuracy. I don't want your nomination to end up being yanked from the main page without having a complete cycle run. And it could happen. So, I would like to avoid that for you. But the other thing is...I can be in error, just like anyone else. That's why I'm asking another uninvolved editor to look at this. If I'm wrong, then it just goes back into prep. Also, I think the original reviewer Gerda Arendt ought to be allowed to have a say about the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and Yoninah: If either one of you have time to look at the sourcing on the article, it would be helpful. If I erred in my concern, just give this nomination a tick so it can go back into a prep. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have not much to add to add to that I accepted the Swedish AGF. The house exists and has a Swedish article dating back to 2006. I struck the original hook, for safety. Other reviewers' eyes are always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Supporting sites: [1], [2] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both — Maile and Gerda Arendt. I guess I didn't pay close enough attention, I thought the issue was simply about the orchard part but I understand the notion that the article as a whole needs more sources to be watertight. I'm sorry for the confusion, I think I can be able to find a few more good sources to add to the article from my books so hopefully the issue can be settled easily. I appreciate the ambition to make the article better, of course. Let me see what I can come up with and I'll get back here. And other reviewers are of course always welcome! Yakikaki (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All right, now I've added two more sources, the one from a standard work on manors in Sweden and the other from an encyclopedia. I hope that will give some flesh to the bones of the article, and I remain of course open to suggestions of further improvements. All the best, Yakikaki (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New review needed now that new sourcing has been added.— Maile (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Review 5X expansion confirmed. QPQ confirmed. Multiple sources apparently support the orchard date. Implicitly that is supported by the royal connection of the founder, and (ca. roughly) the fact that 1632 coins were found in tree roots. Orchard date confirmed, Per Google translate of the one on line source: "The apple trees growing in neat rows in Renaissance gardens, which was built in 1623 by Charles IX hovträdgårdsmästare Johan Ludvigsson." Lucid prose. No Copy vio. I do not read Swedish, and WP:AGF. Overall article has ample secondary sources (IMO). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this as a lead image, but feel the hook is not so hooky. What do you think about adding another tidbit from the source?
ALT3: ... that the orchard at Grönsö Manor (pictured), established in 1623, is still producing apples? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

fine with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I need to wait for someone else to promote it :( Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)