Template:Did you know nominations/Warkworth's Chronicle
- 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) 05:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Warkworth's Chronicle
[edit]- ... that the English Warkworth's Chronicle, which covers the years 1461–1474, tells of the double bleeding of Henry VI and of a headless man who cries "Bowes, bowes, bowes"? Source: The Prose Brut and Other Late Medieval Chronicles 58-62
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Malacañang of the North
- Comment: Article isn't really done yet, but it's long enough--I have to get this DYK on the road before it's too late.
Created by Drmies (talk). Self-nominated at 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC).
- For now, just bold subject, - do we really need all these apostrophes? - May review when I need a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's explained in the article. It's not by Warkworth, but "Warkworth" is the traditional name. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
- I saw the explanation, - question is, though, do we need it in the hook? It made me stumble over the name, - you can actually drop the rest of the hook, because I clicked there, to find out. Now if you have no interest in readers (like me) getting the rest of the hook, keep it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Next step. Detailed article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. We need more refs, please, duplication to the facts in the hook, and duplication to all quotations in quotation marks. (I don't think "confused" needs quotation marks. My version of the hook would be:- ALT1: ... that the English Warkworth's Chronicle covers the years 1461 to 1474, reporting the double bleeding of Henry VI and a headless man who cries "Bowes, bowes, bowes"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- ALT2:
... that the medieval Warkworth's Chronicle told of a headless man who cried "Bowes, bowes, bowes" and a royal corpse that bled long after it died?--
- ALT2:
- I saw the explanation, - question is, though, do we need it in the hook? It made me stumble over the name, - you can actually drop the rest of the hook, because I clicked there, to find out. Now if you have no interest in readers (like me) getting the rest of the hook, keep it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's explained in the article. It's not by Warkworth, but "Warkworth" is the traditional name. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Within date, long enough, neutrally written (relying on expert opinions) and properly cited, with page numbers. No copyvio detected (only book titles). Hooks within count, I prefer ALT2, slightly shorter and more intriguing, even though I hummed over 'medieval', it's very late medieval and i'm wondering if people will be thinking of more well known early manuscripts like the Anglo-Saxon chronicle or apocalypses etc. But then I considered most people won't even consider that, it's medieval so people can learn something. For this and other reasons the hook is interesting to a broad audience as people are attracted to a bit of medieval bloodshed and regicide. Thoroughly enjoyed reading the hook cite and reading about why 'bowes'. (Actually as you are still working on it you probably want to expand that in the article, but it's covered so all good.) Shame there's no (pictured), there's an image on wikimedia here, I am useless at copyright so maybe there is a reason why it's not in the article or in the dyk. If it's an oversight I will happily come back and tick again for ALT2 with the image. Bit confused by the QPQ, looks like Drmies came in towards the end to wrap up an outstanding dyk, I guess that counts as it's re-checking.
Perhaps for clarity put IV next to King Edward in the lede? That's my only comment and it's very minor. Mramoeba (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know why you approve this, including ALT1 and ALT2 which the main author never supported. I at least formatted ALT2, but would still wait for a reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm confused, you don't know why I would approve this nomination? Because as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it. During my last nom 2 other editors suggested hooks and they decided among themselves which they preferred. Of course I always preferred mine, but I thought that was one of the reasons for this process? I did put (all the) hooks were within count and the source supports them all, perhaps I didn't make that clear, I simply preferred ALT2. My apologies if I have got something wrong. Mramoeba (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong, but many articles are not reviewed at all. Before approving the ALTs, I wanted to know what Drmies thinks. Next will be that someone tells me that my review can't be used für qpq because I didn't complete it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Ah ok, I didn't realise you were still reviewing, It looked like it had gone quiet. As for which to review, I usually start with the oldest to see if I can help clear the backlog, but I also look for subjects which are interesting. I am currently looking at the page English apocalypse manuscripts as it is crying out for updating the links. I can review another one if it helps and if anyone is petty enough to question yours then you can point out between us we have done enough. It's a collaboration after all. Mramoeba (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong, but many articles are not reviewed at all. Before approving the ALTs, I wanted to know what Drmies thinks. Next will be that someone tells me that my review can't be used für qpq because I didn't complete it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm confused, you don't know why I would approve this nomination? Because as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with it. During my last nom 2 other editors suggested hooks and they decided among themselves which they preferred. Of course I always preferred mine, but I thought that was one of the reasons for this process? I did put (all the) hooks were within count and the source supports them all, perhaps I didn't make that clear, I simply preferred ALT2. My apologies if I have got something wrong. Mramoeba (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know why you approve this, including ALT1 and ALT2 which the main author never supported. I at least formatted ALT2, but would still wait for a reply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
- Mramoeba, Gerda, I'm not sure I have answers lined up for all the questions, but here we go. a. Did I see a question about lack of sources? This is a pretty esoteric thing, but all the journal references are from legitimate academic journals, and the book is...well, the book is the book on the subject, and Matheson is the expert on the topic (note that Kaufman's essay is in a Festschrift for Matheson). b. If y'all want to redo the quotation marks in the hook, sure--but Gerda, you know I'm in academia and thus a kommaneuker, as the Dutch say. c. I still prefer the first hook because it mentions the name of the king, but I am going to leave this up to you two. d. Oh! That QPQ review! Yeah, that may look a bit simple, but that question (which seemed simple), and the edit to the article, took a fair amount of time to develop: I had to go and read all the sources. So I consider it to be a valid review, even if I came in late and wasn't able to give it the proper tick. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Surprised ;) - The only question I had was if you liked the hook suggestion, and you answered it among the questions not asked. It's your article, and I favour the preferences of the main author even if there are people who will tell you I don't ;) - So you get two ticks for two hooks (ALT1 also has the name of the King), noting that you prefer the original (many of our readers will not know what medieval means without a link, and the question about reliability of sources was raised on the RS noticeboard, and not by me):
offline sources accepted AGF, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
