Template:Did you know nominations/Thousand-year Rose
- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Thousand-year Rose
[edit]
- ... that the Thousand-year Rose (pictured) is believed to be the world's oldest rose?
- ALT1: ... that, according to legend, as long as the Thousand-year Rose (pictured) flourishes, Hildesheim will prosper?
- ALT2: ... that the Thousand-year Rose (pictured) survived despite the destruction of the Cathedral built beside it?
- Reviewed: Sasha (dog)
Created by Hafspajen (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk). Nominated by Sagaciousphil (talk) at 05:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC).
(hopefully that's the right little icon). This is mostly a useful and interesting article, but there are some problems. There does seem to be some padding: the history section is the history of the cathedral not the rose, and the section on the rose has more on the general characteristics of the species than this rose in particular; the structure of the main tale in the legend section follows the source very closely; and there are many links to common words (leaf, flower, mound, sacred) which I was told isn't common practice. Of the hooks, the first one is the most interesting but it is sourced to what appears to be a personal site where the author only mentions "said to be the oldest" in passing. I think such a claim would need a better authority. I hope this isn't too harsh, but, since I've already been told that my standards are too high for DYK, if you want to get another reviewer I won't flounce off in a huff (I might glare at you accusingly with tears welling in my eyes, but you can just pretend not to notice me). Belle (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, well, we try to fix it. Yes, your standards are a bit high, and the legend was indeed reworded, and I don't really want to do that again. But I start adding reference and description of this rose. Hafspajen (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The sourcing of the hook can be made just as well to a book, the Rose lexicon. Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about the links.Hafspajen (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing and your copy edits, Belle, it's very much appreciated - it's always better to have high standards (isn't it, Hafs?). Reviewers are able to undertake copy editing, it's something I often do myself when reviewing nominations, so unless you are adding large amounts of text, it's generally considered okay. And, yes, that is the right icon to use when querying a nomination. I do hope you are willing to continue with the review? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try not to be too strict (sound effects: leather creaking, whiplash, screams). I can't see the Swedish gardening book but I'll accept the hook is cited in there. I'm still not sure about the details on the rose species characteristics, cathedral history etc. which I would think would go better in their own article but I'm perhaps drifting a bit towards my Miss Whiplash persona in that. I would like to see the convert templates used throughout (I don't know how to do them for anything but the most basic measurements, certainly not for ranges), but for the DYK criteria I'd say this is good to go.
This is the Swedish book, Rosor för nordiska trädgårdar : buskrosor Lars-Åke Gustavsson, a rose lexicon of an infinite good quality, see book here. See inside of the book, here The man who wrote it is an university professor and researcher on roses. If anyone ever will translate this one in English, it will be a big time best-seller, I can promise that. Hafspajen (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
