Template:Did you know nominations/William Ketel
- 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 Allen3 talk 12:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
William Ketel
[edit]- ... that although all copies of William Ketel's work on the miracles of John of Beverley are lost, it was transcribed before its loss and this forms the basis for the edition printed in Acta sanctorum?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald E. Mickens
- Comment: Other suggestions for hooks welcome.
Created by Ealdgyth (talk). Self-nominated at 16:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
Article creation and DYK filing date okay. Article length okay. Neutrality and sourcing okay, no reason to suspect copyvio problems. Image in article is okay. QPQ done.
- Hook length just qualifies, hook source is okay, but the wording is problematic. It would be better if "lost" wasn't repeated and it looks like an "in" is missing before "Acta sanctorum". If length is too tight, the specific name Acta sanctorum could be dropped.
- Regarding the article itself, one of the sources uses "(fl. c. 1100)", and so I think it would be good to add "c." into the first sentence, since I gather it isn't known that Ketel was active in the year 1100, it's just a sort of averaging of some possible times he was active. For that same reason I presume you didn't place the article into any Category:English writers by century. In the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Ketel was active around 1100" is redundant and the "as 'Ketill' and was" part later doesn't parse for me. Rest of the article is good. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've fidgeted with the hook - changed "before it was lost" to "before its loss". Inserted the missing "in". I count 197 characters now, I hope I got that right. As to the category - I generally place one or two and leave the rest to others - I don't grok the category system well. Corrected first sentence of second paragraph. Thanks for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hook length depends on whether you count the "..." but it's okay by me. Rest is good and this one is ready. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
