Talk:Patterson's Spade Mill

National Trust pilot

This draft was created as part of a small pilot project initiated by the National Trust, please see further details of the project here. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

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 SL93 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Patterson's Spade Mill

• ... that couples can marry 'over the anvil' at Patterson's Spade Mill (pictured)? Source: "The National Trust's historic Patterson's Spade Mill at Templepatrick welcomed its first ever bride and groom for a traditional marriage 'Over the Anvil' yesterday." https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ulster-spade-mill-digs-up-an-old-wedding-custom-28063931.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ridge
  • Comment: Disclosure: This article was created as part of a paid pilot for the National Trust

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 08:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: As agreed with the nominator, it is suggested to rephrase the hook as "... that the first ever 'over the anvil' wedding at Patterson's Spade Mill took place in 2008?" --Clithering (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• For a city dweller, it is amazing to know that a mill can be converted for so many different manufacturing purposes. While the article is interesting and appears to be well-sourced, the article, which was created and last expanded in July 2022, does not appear to have fulfilled the nomination rules that it has to be created or expanded at least fivefold in the past seven days. As regards the hook, it relies on a source in 2008 which may have been overtaken by events. I have visited the official website of the mill but it does not mention about the wedding service. Perhaps the service has been discontinued for some time and couples can no longer have weddings at the mill at present? If true, subject to the fulfillment of the concerned nomination rules, the hook may be rephrased as "... that the first ever 'over the anvil' wedding at Patterson's Spade Mill took place in 2008?" Thank you.--Clithering (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Clithering, thanks very much for the comments - if you look at the history you'll see that it was moved from :::Draft space to Article space on 30 September, at 17:27 - so it is within the time allowed for DYK nominations, as thatwhen an article is 'live', not when the draft is commenced. I'm happy with your edit to the hook, please could you form at i starts t statrtsso its clear to the promoter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajmmoore (talk • contribs) 15:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the oversight and thank you for pointing it out to me. I have completed the review, of which the findings are set out in the above checklist. --Clithering (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@Clithering: Just fyi, you need to put updated ticks below the previous ones. Otherwise the bot can't move them to the approved area, as it thinks that the question mark was the last added icon. I didn't know either, but someone else had the same issue recently. So, please add a green tick at the bottom of this discussion (but above the "Please do not write below this line" line!) to finish this review :) –LordPeterII (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that. This nomination should have been promoted long ago! --Clithering (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore and Clithering: If it's all right with you, I actually prefer the original hook; it's more concise, and saying "2008" makes the tradition feel a little kitschy, rather than truly folksy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

fine by me @Theleekycauldron: Lajmmoore (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no strong view on keeping the original hook.--Clithering (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)