- 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 — Maile (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Speyer wine bottle[edit]
- ...
that a 1650-year-old bottle of wine (pictured) has been found in Germany and it is considered the oldest unopened wine bottle in the world?
Created by Cyclopia (talk). Self-nominated at 14:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC).
- Review New enough. Long enough. I added content, as it was close to the 1500 character cut off at the time, but now has tripled in size and citations. Many sources supporting hook, including at least
twothree books. Clear for plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Covers the subject well. Well done! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC) - QPQ
Needed.Confirmed Template:Did you know nominations/Geodynamics on Mars 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Review New enough. Long enough. I added content, as it was close to the 1500 character cut off at the time, but now has tripled in size and citations. Many sources supporting hook, including at least
- 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If it were up to me, I would add this picture, which is in the article. As to copyright status of the picture, at Commons the uploader says it was his and a free image. Also, maybe the hook should have the name Speyer wine bottle directly in it? As to the article itself, it uses A.D., and maybe that should be C.E.. There is also a statement of 1.5 litres which maybe should have a conversion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Further comment I have found some sources that pretty clearly indicate that it was tested at least, if not literally opened. How one tests the contents without opening is not clear. See the external links and the talk page. Perhaps we need to work on an Alternate query/hook? However, this seems to be well supported by all the sources: "The Roman Wine of Speyer: The oldest Wine of the World that's still liquid." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
How one tests the contents without opening is not clear.
- By spectroscopy, I'd say. But we just stick by what sources say, so I am not very sure of your question.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)- They talk about smell. And I think the spectroscopy claim (which is not in any source) is wishful thinking and an anachronism. Better to say "The oldest Wine of the World that's still liquid" even though some sources do say it was unopened, and others say it was. I understand WP:truth. But I don't want somebody higher up the food chain saying I certified a dubious hook line. So I would propose we go with an alternate hook. I understand your claim that "we just go with what the sources say, but we have an evident conflict here that in my opinion is 'not rug-sized.' If I certify this, I will catch heat if it blows up. IF the hierarchy wants to go with this, let it be their decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was wrong about the anacchronism part. History of spectroscopy. But I don't think that "smell" is covered by that. It may depend upon the definition of "unopened." But the 30s test results were lost during the war, and the other anecdotal reports of earlier tests or openings are sketchy, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Still liquid" is okay for me. I have no interest in speculation about it at all -my spectroscopy claim was just an hypothesis. I only know what sources say; if something comes out that explains how they did the analysis, all the better. Do you have sources about the smell claim? I didn't find any.--cyclopiaspeak! 18:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I was wrong about the anacchronism part. History of spectroscopy. But I don't think that "smell" is covered by that. It may depend upon the definition of "unopened." But the 30s test results were lost during the war, and the other anecdotal reports of earlier tests or openings are sketchy, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- They talk about smell. And I think the spectroscopy claim (which is not in any source) is wishful thinking and an anachronism. Better to say "The oldest Wine of the World that's still liquid" even though some sources do say it was unopened, and others say it was. I understand WP:truth. But I don't want somebody higher up the food chain saying I certified a dubious hook line. So I would propose we go with an alternate hook. I understand your claim that "we just go with what the sources say, but we have an evident conflict here that in my opinion is 'not rug-sized.' If I certify this, I will catch heat if it blows up. IF the hierarchy wants to go with this, let it be their decision. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
My latest edit puts "scent" back into a footnote. There is a source. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
ALT1 * ... that a 1650-year-old bottle of wine (pictured) has been found in Germany and it is considered the oldest still liquid wine bottle in the world?7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Even as I was approving this, I noticed that two critical references were removed. One of them is a source for the one block quote in the article. Lest we misunderstand one another. If you choose not to leave those two references in Reuterdahl, Magnus (March 25, 2011). "A few words on prehistoric and historic wine imports, etc". Retrieved April 26, 2014. Reuterdahl, Magnus (December 10, 2011). "Should the Speyer wine dated to ca 325 AD be opened?". Testimony of a wine junkie. Retrieved April 26, 2014. I will pull my tick. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, just to understand: what have the references to do with the hook? The hook would be correct and verified with the original references in. Why do you need two Wordpress blog sources (most probably not WP:RS)? --cyclopiaspeak! 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator removed a source for an important block quote (only one in the article) which explicates on whether the bottle was tested and opened. He says it was an "unreliable source." I won't certify this with that omission, and removed my tick. I would concede that the ALT1 hooks is supported by the sources. But attribution is important, and while we are not trying to get to WP:TRUTH, ignoring this information (or not attributing it) is not right. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nonsense. The reliable sources present verify both hooks. The two unreliable sources (added by the editor above and now removed) added some more background indeed, but being, ehm, unreliable, we cannot rely on them anyway, so they change nothing on the status of the hook. Feel free to suggest a different hook however. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If somebody else wants to say this is nonsense, so be it. I don't agree.belated signature 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Issue is not fixed. Article was far better and more accurate with the block quote in the footnote and the sourcing. As it is you have created a potential half truth article based upon a failure to appreciate that those two sources were credible. You have applied policy at the expense of common sense. One ought to not blindly apply an general a priori rule without looking at the specific instances of the application. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, the issue here is clear. Now, since the hook is verified and all other conditions are verified anyway, can we put back the tick here? And also, can we please move this discussion on Talk:Speyer wine bottle or, even better, at WP:RS/N? I will be happy to include the references if it turns out that they are reliable sources, but for something like a Wordpress-hosted personal blog, there is a significant burden of proof to show that they can be used as reliable sources.--cyclopiaspeak! 18:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Article and hook looks good. Blogs can be acceptable sources in some cases. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Issues seem to have been addressed, but may I suggest
- ALT2: ... that a 1650-year-old bottle of wine (pictured) found in Germany has been called "the worlds' oldest existing bottle of wine"?
- as I slightly more straight forward and uncontenous version of the hook? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The length is fine and it has lots of references and it has been considered and discussed by experienced editors and compared to policy and all actions and comments have been resolved or abated. I have checked the ref and it supports all the hook variations, but this is "the community" speaking here. Hierarchy?? The consensus I see is "good to go" Victuallers (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)