The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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.
Article meets all the criteria. New article, meets length requires and is suitably referenced. Hook was eyecatching enough to make me review it, so I figure it's good enough!Miyagawa(talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Multiple sourcing problems here. The article appears to be a translation from Swedish Wikipedia, but is not properly attributed as such. The book sources used lack page numbers, which are required for verification. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just double checking the article and I'd also missed that there are three paragraphs without citations at the end as well. Miyagawa(talk) 10:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The article is not a translation from Swedish Wikipedia. The same contributor wrote both articles and uploaded both of them the same day. The Swedish version went up 1 hour and 20 minutes before the English version, but that hardly makes this one a derived translation of the other. --Orlady (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that based on the first version here, it clearly is a derived translation, but as you will. The other issues are more concerning here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's my understanding that the "translation from another Wikipedia" attribution is used to provide the history for copyright purposes. When the same user contributes the same article in two different languages at the same time, there should be no need for that kind of documentation.
I've added sources for all statements in the article that appeared to be unattributed.
I've also added page numbers to almost all of the book references in the article. In instances where I could not verify a page number from online sources, I added an additional reference citation to support the content. Please note that DYK has not traditionally scrutinized all of the citations in an article in order to fully verify article contents, but has focused on verifying the hook fact(s) and assuring that credible-seeming reference citations are provided throughout the whole article. The type of thorough review that I carried out to attach page numbers to all reference call-outs is more typically associated with FA. --Orlady (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Nor has DYK "traditionally" checked for copyvio/plagiarism. Note also that the hook fact as originally passed lacked a complete reference. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it appeared from the article that most of the sources cited were print-only sources, meaning that the reviewer would have to assume good faith, consistent with the DYK rules. Before I nominated the article, I found other sources that gave the same information as the hook does, but since the sources cited in the article appeared to be more authoritative than the ones I found, I did not change the sourcing. Having discovered that portions of the books cited in the article are available online (at least in the U.S.), I was able to very thoroughly confirm the hook fact, but that often isn't possible. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ready for re-review. --Orlady (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This looks good to go now. The few cites still lacking page numbers are backed up by additional citations. Offline references accepted per AGF.--Cúchullaint/c 20:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)