The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
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.
Improved to Good Article status by Usernameunique ( talk) and Chiswick Chap ( talk). Nominated by Usernameunique ( talk) at 19:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
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hook and its relevant content in the article do not meet them right now.For the article itself, stating that it is an unpublished preprint and in-text attributing it as such may resolve some of those concerns.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)
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)
The survey uncovered significant findswhile 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 journalthen 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)
The result was: promoted by
MeegsC (
talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
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.
Improved to Good Article status by Usernameunique ( talk) and Chiswick Chap ( talk). Nominated by Usernameunique ( talk) at 19:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
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)
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)
The survey uncovered significant findswhile 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 journalthen 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)