Template:Did you know nominations/Strängnäs stone

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Strängnäs stone

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Strängnäs stone

• ... that the almost mythical Strängnäs stone (pictured) is probably real? Source: various
  • ALT1:... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured) was considered a forgery for 49 years? Source: various

• No Review Needed

Created/expanded by Berig (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC).

• ALT2:... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured), long considered a forgery, is probably real?

• New enough, long enough, cited, No QPQ needed. Passes earwig. Hook needs approval. --evrik ^(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The new hook looks fine!–Berig (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Evrik: Looks like Berig is satisfied with the new hook. Is anything else needed before you finish your review? Edge3 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• @Edge3: technically, I can't approve my own hook, but you could. --evrik ^(talk) 05:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine for you to approve, since it's a synthesis of ALT0 and ALT1, and the nominator agrees to your proposal. But in any case, I've also conducted my own review, and I approve ALT2. No copyvio detected, and the article is well written and cited. Accepting offline sources in good faith. Edge3 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)