Talk:Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty

Did you know nomination

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) 05:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Callaghan MacCarty left his life as a Catholic monk in France and converted to Protestantism to become the third Earl of Clancarty? Cokayne 1913, p. 216, line 7: "He was formerly monk in France, but, on his accession to the title, conformed to the established religion ...", Cokayne 1913, p. 216, line 9: "... he d. 'out of the communion of the Church of England.'"
  • ALT1:... that Callaghan MacCarty converted from Catholicism to Protestantism in order to become Earl of Clancarty, but died a Catholic? Cokayne 1913, p. 216, line 7: "He was formerly monk in France, but, on his accession to the title, conformed to the established religion ...", Cokayne 1913, p. 216, line 9: "... he d. 'out of the communion of the Church of England.'"
  • ALT2:... that Callaghan MacCarty left his life as a Catholic monk in France to become the third Earl of Clancarty? Cokayne 1913, p. 216, line 7: "He was formerly monk in France, but, on his accession to the title, conformed to the established religion ..."

• Reviewed: As I have less than 5 DYK's, I am opting not to review.

Converted from a redirect by Johannes Schade (talk). Nominated by CaptainEek (talk) at 00:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC).

• Review in progress. ミラP 17:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Although this was converted into a redirect the day before nom, has 3673 b of prose, and there are hooks interesting, the hooks barely fail WP:POSA and, most importantly, article has sourcing gaps and I'm not sure if the timeline is encyclopedic. Can somebody help CaptainEek and Johannes Schade fix them? ミラP 18:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• ??? You mean from a redirect, surely. What WP:POSA issues do you see? The (hidden) timeline looks fine to me, & isn't really a DYK issue. Sourcing seems ok for DYK. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Sorry, forgot to respond. Original hook looks fine. But everything in timeline needs sources or you can remove the timeline altogether. ミラP 14:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything - just drive-by comments. But these don't sound like DYK issues to me. After 6 weeks I think a new reviewer might be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Fine. I'll leave this to another reviewer. ミラP 15:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• see above. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
• I unfortunately do not have time to do a full review right now, but I think the original hook sounds interesting and does provide some astonishment. It's not that common for Catholic monks to convert to another religion right? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, Right you are, especially not in the 1600s, let alone converting back again at the end of their life. Very unusual. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Full review still needed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Miraclepine is currently indefinitely blocked from editing, and as no one else has picked up reviewing this since then, I'll be continuing their review. I am noting their size and creation check. Earwigs is slow so I can't check for close paraphrasing. The wording of the article also sounds a bit strange to me, but I'm not sure if this is just an ENGVAR issue. There are also certain words in the article that don't seem encyclopedic, such as "sadly". In the paragraph which has the sentence By this advancement the title of viscount..., does the footnote at the start reference the whole paragraph? If that were the case, I would suggest moving the footnote to the end. No QPQ needed. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Narutolovehinata5:, Thanks for taking a look! I have gone through and given the article a copyedit, hopefully that clears up most issues. I have also put that footnote in the right place. Let me know if there are further issues, I know the wording is a bit odd in places, I think that's because some of it is from some archaic sources which use...stranger versions of English than we now do. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The article looks a lot better now, although I think it could still use one more copyedit since some paragraphs and sentences are a bit hard to read. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• You can always submit the article for a copyedit to the Guild of Copy Editors, which is currently holding a copyediting drive through the end of the month, so it could receive an independent copyedit by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• @CaptainEek: It's been several weeks since the last comment here, are you still planning to submit this for copyediting? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, Oh yes! I had forgotten to do so, I'll put a request up at GOCE. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see that the article has still not been added to the GOCE Requests page, so I did so myself. Unfortunately, the backlog has grown quite a bit, so it will probably take three to four weeks before someone gets to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• New enough (as a converted redirect), long enough, hooks cited, main, alt1 and alt2 all acceptable, nocopyvio detected, nom has 3 DYK credits so QPQ not required.

On the previous comments, the prose looks ok to me, imo we should only reject if for DYK if it is so bad that it would be an embarrasment to put it on the front page. I'm not too bothered that the family tree is uncited; most of it is cited in the body of the article or the articles of the subject's parents. However, there is no cite for two of his siblings, Dennis and Honora, and it is not obvious where that information came from. Also, the claim that his wife was a Protestant is uncited. SpinningSpark 13:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Johannes Schade, Perhaps you could provide some insight here? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 15:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Spinningspark, Johannes and I have cleaned things up a bit, removing the extra sibling and the claim of his wife's religion (it would certainly have been protestant, since there were not mixed religious marriages in that time, but that also means that its not really a necessary encyclopedic fact). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good to go. SpinningSpark 22:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)