Talk:Siege of Dundee
Latest comment: 2 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
 | Siege of Dundee has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 18, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that General George Monck accepted that 500 Scots, including women and children, were killed when his army stormed Dundee in 1651? | ||||||||||||
| Current status: Good article | |||||||||||||
 | This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
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 SL93 (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
( )
- ... that General George Monck accepted that 500 Scots, including women and children, were killed when his army stormed Dundee in 1651? Source: Royle, Trevor (2005) [2004]. Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1660. London: Abacus. ISBN 978-0-349-11564-1. Page 640.
Improved to Good Article status by Gog the Mild (talk). Self-nominated at 19:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC).
Hi Gog, review follows: article promoted to GA on 1 December and nominated the same day; article is well written and cited inline throughout to reliable sources; most sources are offline but I checked a sample of the online sources and found no issue with overly close paraphrasing; hook is interesting and mentioned in the article, AGF on offline source cited; a QPQ has been carried out. Looks fine to me. Not a DYK issue but just a note that you list Sherwood as a source but don't cite him - Dumelow (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Dumelow, Sherwood was supporting the text that got removed in the last edit before the article was promoted. I was so excited I forgot to check. Now removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Death of Cromwell
editHi AmericanLemming and thanks for spotting the discrepancy. This was in the article, but during GAN the assessor Pickersgill-Cunliffe suggested that some of what I had in Aftermath was too remote from the topic of the article. So I trimmed it down, see [1]. And didn't notice that I had not trimmed the lead to match. I have now done this. Obviously, just where information becomes too remote from the topic is subjective, so feel free to come back with any proposals to work some or all of this back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Argh! I should really have spotted that in my last read through. Apologies! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)