Did you know nomination

edit
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 Theleekycauldron (talk23:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Created by Joseph2302 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

  • Article is long enough and new enough. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting. QPQ needs to be done. Please let me know when you have done QPQ and this will be all set. Thriley (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
To T:DYK/P6

Bravo

edit

Great article! I've done a little bit of copy editing. 86.137.147.216 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, just perhaps, the first baron deliberately hanged for murder in England in a particular period.

edit

But not [what] the article claims, based on an entirely inappropriate cite. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Source looks reliable, Qwirkle why do you think it isn't? It's from a biography about the band, which includes detail on the house related to the band. And is not a self-published source. But I'll remove that first claim if it pleases you. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
”Reliable”, in Wikipedia’s peculiar sense, is not the same as “appropriate.” What particular expertise does the author have about legal history? Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
But I'll remove that first claim if it pleases you. Better, by far, to remove it because it is simply inaccurate, without a good deal of added detail and nuance. Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
And tagging a whole article for factual accuracy because you disagree with one thing is petty. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Given the level of sourcing, what makes you think this is the only thing wrong with it? Qwirkle (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Given that an article of 2,300 characters has 13 sources, I think sourcing is fine. In the case of actual problems, easiest way is to fix it (rather than complain referencing a source in another article, instead of just adding that source here). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Obviously, you think the sourcing was “fine”, and you appear to believe that simply counting words and cites provides a useful clue about this.

That’s the problem.

A biography of a current figures might be a good source of folk beliefs about history, but it isn’t particularly likely to be a reliable -in the ordinary sense, not newspeak wikiblather - source about actual history…and, surprise, surprise, in this case it wasn’t. Qwirkle (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Etymology claimed

edit

This is but one of at least 3 theories; I suspect the Lyngyver etymology may be the correct one. Qwirkle (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I haven't seen a source for any others- feel free to add them all as possibilities. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fiennes did not, probably, actually kill Busbrig

edit

Dacre was convicted of murder because he led a criminal enterprise -poaching- that resulted in a death, not because he did the actual stabbing. Qwirkle (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to edit it with a reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Fixed to what the ODNB says. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply