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) 06:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Comment: This is my first time with WP:DYK. I created the article and submitted it to WP:AFC.
Moved to mainspace by Bkissin (talk). Nominated by MJL (talk) at 02:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC).
I'll do a full review soon, but right now I have concerns about both hooks: they're not exactly eye-catching or hooky. Like, instead of saying that the creation of the company was controversial, it might be a good idea to include the context for that in the hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I also have to note that, while you have done a QPQ, as you have less than five DYK nominations, you are not required to do a QPQ (you can still do one of course if you want, it's just optional right now). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 02:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I figured it'd be the polite thing to do –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 02:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the creation of the Swedish Levant Company in 1738 was controversial because of a disagreement between the merchants and the Hat Party? --valereee (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: Oh my gosh I love that one!!! Only correction would be to change the merchants to several Swedish merchants because according to the source the merchant elite supported the English model. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 16:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT2a: ... that the creation of the Swedish Levant Company in 1738 was controversial because of a disagreement between several Swedish merchants and the Hat Party? --valereee (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
ALT2a is really good. I have however seen some typos in the article, for example "At major issue was" instead of "a major issue was". Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Overall: The article is a great introduction; ALT2a is best. (I've unlinked the year; we don't link dates like that.) Some suggestions:
Thorough citation is good, but review WP:CITEDENSE; quite a few of your footnotes would be fine merely being at the end of the paragraph.
You have a tendency to WP:OVERLINK. For example, outside of discussion of economic theory it's usually not necessary to link something like "profit".
Take care with what you cite. If you cite a chapter in an edited volume, for example, you should be citing the chapter title. (If it's a chapter from a monograph it's not necessary.) The editor of the volume is not an author of that chapter.
External links to catalogs like Worldcat aren't that useful; mainly link if (partial) access to the text is available.
Expand the lead; it should summarize what's in the article so it can be a bit longer.
I think this is ready for promotion. Kim Post (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll do a full review soon, but right now I have concerns about both hooks: they're not exactly eye-catching or hooky. Like, instead of saying that the creation of the company was controversial, it might be a good idea to include the context for that in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Full review needed; prior reviewer has not returned after four weeks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
The article is a great introduction; ALT2a is best. (I've unlinked the year; we don't link dates like that.) Some suggestions: