Template:Did you know nominations/Tangendorf disk brooch
- The following discussion 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 Miyagawa (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Tangendorf disk brooch
[edit]
- ... that the round symbol on the coat of arms (pictured) of Toppenstedt represents the Tangendorf disk brooch, an Iron Age fibula discovered at a Bronze Age tumulus in the German municipality in 1930?
Created/expanded by Bullenwächter (talk) & by Pigsonthewing (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 16:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have corrected the dating of the fibula in the teaser as it is an Iron Age object, found at / nearby a Bronze Age tumulus. --Bullenwächter (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ooops! Thanks for fixing. I have tweaked the hook again to mention both Ages, and somehow kept the hook under the 200-character limit. --PFHLai (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Exquisite object ad article, well sourced, offline sources accepted AGF. I am not an expert in ancient art, perhaps someone who his should check for specific terms. For my taste, the hook is overloaded, and I would prefer to see the precious real thing to the coat of arms, what do you think of
- Ooops! Thanks for fixing. I have tweaked the hook again to mention both Ages, and somehow kept the hook under the 200-character limit. --PFHLai (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the Tangendorf disk brooch (pictured), an Iron Age fibula discovered in a Bronze Age tumulus, is depicted in the coat of arms of nearby Toppenstedt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to approve ALT1. Is that okay with everyone?PumpkinSky talk 22:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the original hook was crafted to deliberately NOT show the real thing on MainPage. If you want to see the real thing, please click and look at the article. If you insist on showing the real thing on MainPage, please do not use the same hook fact. Instead, consider that the fact that the brooch, before it was sent to the museum, was stored in a drawer with exercise equipment at an elementary school nearby. --PFHLai (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why should the hook be changed? It is hooky, and approved. If I came up with a different one, that would have to start over, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- A problem with the main hook is that the year of discovery in the ground is only in the lead, not even mentioned, much less cited, in the body.PumpkinSky talk 21:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why should the hook be changed? It is hooky, and approved. If I came up with a different one, that would have to start over, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the original hook was crafted to deliberately NOT show the real thing on MainPage. If you want to see the real thing, please click and look at the article. If you insist on showing the real thing on MainPage, please do not use the same hook fact. Instead, consider that the fact that the brooch, before it was sent to the museum, was stored in a drawer with exercise equipment at an elementary school nearby. --PFHLai (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems to have stalled, and the original hook fact—specifically "in the 1930s"—is not supported by an inline citation in the article. Now that "1930" has been added to the first sentence of the "Discovery" section, the obvious place for such a reference is at the end of that sentence. (Also, why "in the 1930s" when "in 1930" is more specific and supported by the article text?) I believe there must be an explicit "Iron Age" reference as well; the term does not have an inline reference in relation to the piece, though Bronze Age does in relation to the tumulus. This affects both the original and alternate hooks, so neither can yet proceed. Note that if PFHLai's suggested approach for the fibula image hook involving the drawer is created, then a number of inline citations must be added to support the facts in this new hook. I do prefer the original hook over the ALT1, but the article needs supporting citations regardless, and some action soon. It's been over a week. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can we use the original hook without mentioning the year? In the meantime, I'll ask the author for more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I'm adding Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) as an author. --PFHLai (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have added a supporting referece for the first sentence, all other statements are referenced with the relevant publications. Please let me know in case further references for details are needed. --Bullenwächter (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't follow the latest questions. Traveling now, I would appreciate if someone else would finish the review, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Approving the original hook, modified to say "in 1930", which is what the article says and is inline sourced, and which uses the first image. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
