Talk:Dalby Gospel Book

Did you know 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 SL93 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pages from the Dalby Gospel Book

• ... that the Dalby Gospel Book (pictured) is the earliest testimony of the presence of books in Denmark? Source: Nielsen, p. 19. Sorry, offline source in Danish.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Imperator luteocupreus

Created by Yakikaki (talk). Self-nominated at 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC).

• I think that we need a stronger and more recent source than a 1937 book to make this claim. That was almost a century ago and older books could have been discovered in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment buidhe, it's a very reasonable point to raise. However, I still think there are good arguments for using this source. Firstly, the annual research output on medieval Danish manuscripts is not overwhelming, to put it mildly, and for example Rydén in his article from 2012 still quotes even Wrangel from 1923. So I would argue that it's not a priori weird to use a source which in other areas of research would seem hopelessly outdated. Having said that, I have added a few more recent sources to the article, none of them contradicting Nielsen but making statements in the same vein. For the hook though I would still like to keep Nielsen, because I think he makes the most nuanced statement. The two more recent sources I added this morning are all about this being the "oldest Danish" or "oldest Nordic" book, but as Rydén (and, by the way, already Nielsen in 1937) points out, there's no way we can know it was made in Denmark. We do however know that it was physically located in Denmark, and it is the first book of which this can be said. Hence, my preference for Nielsen as a source since he is more exact in his wording in making this claim. I hope that can convince you to accept this as a source for the DYK, otherwise I would propose an ALT along the lines of the more recent (but also more sloppily worded) sources. Thanks for raising the issue, I hope my reply makes sense! Best, Yakikaki (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's fine if the more recent sources do confirm this (although in imprecise language). The other issue is that the hook reads a bit strange, and some English speakers might assume "book" is something produced with a printing press. Better: ALT1 ... that the 11th-century Dalby Gospel Book (pictured) is the first medieval manuscript known to have existed in Denmark? (t · c) buidhe 11:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you! I think ALT1 is better, great suggestion. Oh, and for QPQ I reviewed an article about a mushroom, as linked above. Thanks for the review! Yakikaki (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - See above

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: See above (t · c) buidhe 11:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Need second reviewer to approve ALT1 only (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since the review was otherwise already done by @buidhe, I hereby approve ALT1, assuming good faith on the offline source. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)