Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Rundkvist (2nd nomination)

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 MeegsC (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Martin Rundkvist

(

)

Gold foil figure from Aska

... that last summer, Martin Rundkvist discovered 22 gold foil figures (example pictured) while excavating a "Beowulfian mead hall" in Sweden?

Source: Livescience article; Im Sommer 2020 führte ein Team um Martin Rundkvist von der Universität Łódź eine Ausgrabung in Aska bei Hagebyhöga in der schwedischen Provinz Östergötland durch. Dabei konnte etwa ein Fünftel eines großen Hallenbaus auf 48m Länge freigelegt werden, der in die Zeit um 700 n.Chr. datiert. Im Inneren des Gebäudes fand man insgesamt 23 »Guldgubbar«, offenbar Teile der Innenausstattung. from Mehler, Natascha (2020). ""Guldgubbar" aus Schweden: Votivbleche der Vendelzeit" ["Guldgubbar" from Sweden: Votive Objects of the Vendel Period]. Archäologie in Deutschland (in German) (6): 4–5.

Reviewed: Mark Cullen

Improved to Good Article status by Usernameunique (talk) and Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Usernameunique (talk) at 19:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC).

Eligible based on the new GA status and length. Besides the following issue, the article is generally referenced to reliable sources, neutral, and has no detected copyvios.
The hook is interesting, but the major issue that I see with the hook is that it is cited to a report [that] has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. The content in the article about this topic is also cited directly to the academia.edu preprint and to news reports about it. Right now, the entire last paragraph of the "Aska mead hall" subsection is written in WP:WIKIVOICE and cited solely to the preprint. Parts of the article also use Rundkvist's WordPress blog in the same way for discovery claims. If a preprint is on research that has not yet been published, then it is a primary source and is not generally considered a reliable source (e.g. the RSP entry for arXiv and RSP entry for ResearchGate). I do not doubt that this will be published in the future and therefore meet RS standards, but the hook and its relevant content in the article do not meet them right now.
For the article itself, stating that it is an unpublished preprint and in-text attributing it as such may resolve some of those concerns. Even with those fixes though, this DYK nomination may need a new hook (it would be far too awkward to say something like "... that last summer, Martin Rundkvist claimed to/may have discovered 22 gold foil figures (example pictured) while excavating a "Beowulfian mead hall" in Sweden?". — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, MarkH21. The hook is supported by, and cited to, numerous secondary sources: this Livescience article, this news article, this television report, this other news article, and an Archäologie in Deutschland journal article. In fact, the academia.edu report you mention postdates all but one of these sources, and is not even in the article; two excavation reports support the third paragraph in the Aska section, but these are entirely unrelated to (and do not mention) the gold figures. Meanwhile, the only "discovery claims" in any way sourced to Aardvarchaeology come from a single line, discussing the non-gold items found at Aska. Most of these are mentioned in the secondary sources discussed above, but the Aardvarchaeology sources are convenient in terms of having them in one, easily accessible place. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

For the hook, the cited LiveScience article directly points to the academia.edu preprint and says that it is a report [that] has not been published in a peer reviewed journal. The article should attribute this too. If the Archäologie in Deutschland article supports the claim then this isn't an issue though. I will have to take a look (or you can provide the direct quote).
Separate from the hook, the entire last paragraph of the "Aska mead hall" subsection is cited solely to this academia.edu preprint and this academia.edu preprint, with WP:WIKIVOICE claims like The survey uncovered significant finds to the west. There are no independent sources in that paragraph, no attribution, nor any indication that this research has not been peer-reviewed yet. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, MarkH21. The Live Science article is a secondary source; by definition, secondary sources rely on primary sources. That does not mean that we discount what the secondary sources have to say—otherwise, Wikipedia (which is a tertiary source) would largely be a collection of empty pages. In any event, Archäologie in Deutschland (not to mention the other three secondary sources) backs up the hook facts: Im Sommer 2020 führte ein Team um Martin Rundkvist von der Universität Łódź eine Ausgrabung in Aska bei Hagebyhöga in der schwedischen Provinz Östergötland durch. Dabei konnte etwa ein Fünftel eines großen Hallenbaus auf 48m Länge freigelegt werden, der in die Zeit um 700 n.Chr. datiert. Im Inneren des Gebäudes fand man insgesamt 23 »Guldgubbar«, offenbar Teile der Innenausstattung. (It says 23 gold figures rather than 22 because several fragments were later joined.)

As to the academia.edu reports: they are excavation reports, not preprints. And these are perfectly acceptable when "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Here, we have excavation reports on Scandinavian archaeology, by a subject-matter expert in Scandinavian archaeology, whose work in Scandinavian archaeology has been published by reliable, independent publications.

One final point, about the excavation report that is not currently in the article. Even if it were a primary source (it's not—it's a self-published secondary source), now that it's been "reputably republished" by Live Science, it would merit use in Wikipedia. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, the Archäologie in Deutschland article is a peer-reviewed academic article that sufficiently supports the hook and its relevant material in the article, so the hook itself is now good to go. Ideally, the middle paragraph of the "Aska mead hall" subsection should cite that more instead of / in addition to the popular science articles, news articles, and primary sources that are currently used.

Primary sources are acceptable with certain caveats (e.g. WP:INTEXT attribution for major claims or appraisals of findings). The last paragraph of "Aska mead hall" states plainly in WP:WIKIVOICE that, for example, The survey uncovered significant finds while only citing the non-peer-reviewed Rundkvist report itself. That is a statement of significance cited to the authors themselves, which absolutely need to be attributed. Regardless of coverage by a popular science article (or even if it was The New York Times), if the secondary source itself attributes the claims to a report [that] has not been published in a peer reviewed journal then the WP article does too. That type of secondary source (which I understand is largely about the summer 2020 survey and not the September 2020 survey anyways) would not replace the NPOV & MOS need for in-text attribution to a report that has not yet been peer-reviewed. If the resolution of that is not entirely clear, I can go ahead and add the attribution. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Done and added the Archäologie in Deutschland article as a source for the hook. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns resolved + AGF on the Archäologie in Deutschland quote. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, MarkH21. Under my reading of the various policies/guidelines I still don’t think the in-text attribution is necessary, but you did an elegant job of adding it to the article. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)