Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Exton
- 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: rejected by Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
No action on "citation needed" tags
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nicholas Exton[edit]
- ... that in 1388 Nicholas Brembre was tried for treason and hanged, and his fate was sealed by his successor as London Mayor, Nicholas Exton, one of those who "knew him best"? Oliver, C., Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2010), 104.
Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- n - Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article is easily long enough and was newly promoted to GA when nominated. It's in excellent shape generally and well-sourced (not a surprise, since it's just come through the GA process). A few requests for clarification: in the section "Merchant and alderman," one sentence asserts that "... he was also a Surveyor of Murage Mayor of the Westminster staple." I'm unable to parse that line, and it sounds like there's an "and" missing between Murage and Mayor, but I'm not clear enough on what any of those terms means to be sure; perhaps the nominator can clear up that sentence? Another sentence in the same section tells that Exton was "... imprisoned for a year ... and forced to leave the city, albeit temporarily. Only a month later, though, in September 1382, he was arguing the same points in parliament." If he was imprisoned for a year, then how was he in parliament a month later? AGF on the offline hook source, if these two spots can be cleared up, the article will be good to go. The review is now on hold until the article reaches a stable version. The article now appears to be stable and well-sourced, and unclear points have been improved. There are currently three "Citation needed" templates in the article (one of which I added for an unattributed quotation); all three claims need to be given citations or else removed, and then the article will be ready to go. Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0: I wish you had pinged me. This might have got resolved sooner than it has. Those points have now been clarified, with wikilinks and further info. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake! It didn't occur to me that you might have nominated the article but not bothered to watchlist the review. Since the article is now tagged with a "major edit" template, I'll review it afresh whenever the rewrite is completed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- After the FAC, you mean? Surely, by then, it will no longer be eligible, surely? @Bryanrutherford0: btw — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean; I don't know anything about any Featured Article nomination. The article we're presently discussing for Did You Know, Nicholas Exton, currently has the "In use" template at the top, and the language is broken and incomplete (e.g., the "London" section ends with "This made the"), presumably because you are in the midst of rewriting and expanding it. You have now substantially changed the article since I reviewed it the first time, making my previous review pointless. I cannot review the article until it reaches a stable version; please indicate here (or by pinging me, if you prefer) when you are done making large changes to the article, and I will be happy to review it again at that point.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Bryanrutherford0 & Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, looks like this article is now stable enough to be fully reviewed? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah! Thank you for the heads-up, I'll review it again in the next couple of hours.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:: I have re-reviewed the article; if you can cite the three points carrying "Citation needed" templates, then it will be ready for approval.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ah! Thank you for the heads-up, I'll review it again in the next couple of hours.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- Bryanrutherford0 & Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, looks like this article is now stable enough to be fully reviewed? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean; I don't know anything about any Featured Article nomination. The article we're presently discussing for Did You Know, Nicholas Exton, currently has the "In use" template at the top, and the language is broken and incomplete (e.g., the "London" section ends with "This made the"), presumably because you are in the midst of rewriting and expanding it. You have now substantially changed the article since I reviewed it the first time, making my previous review pointless. I cannot review the article until it reaches a stable version; please indicate here (or by pinging me, if you prefer) when you are done making large changes to the article, and I will be happy to review it again at that point.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- After the FAC, you mean? Surely, by then, it will no longer be eligible, surely? @Bryanrutherford0: btw — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- My mistake! It didn't occur to me that you might have nominated the article but not bothered to watchlist the review. Since the article is now tagged with a "major edit" template, I'll review it afresh whenever the rewrite is completed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Bryanrutherford0: I wish you had pinged me. This might have got resolved sooner than it has. Those points have now been clarified, with wikilinks and further info. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Despite a notice to their talk page (quickly archived without the requested response to this nomination page), the "Citation needed" templates remain. I'll place one more notice on the nominator's talk page (under their new username), and hope that they respond here, as it would be a shame for this article not to appear as a DYK hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: the latest notice has produced results: the nominator wrote that
I am going through each individual reference in turn, which as you can imagine may take some time
, so we'll wait for the results from that process, since work is being done to address the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
- Note: the latest notice has produced results: the nominator wrote that
I pinged the nominator on their talk page on January 24, giving them until the end of January to actually address the issue, since nothing had been done in the interim. They replied there (rather than here, as requested) on January 27, saying they'd forgotten about it. The implication was, presumably, that they would do something, but over 250 Wikipedia edits later, nothing has been done, and February 2 is nearly over. Marking for closure as unsuccessful, though of course if the issues are addressed before this closes, the review can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
