Template:Did you know nominations/John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford
- 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 97198 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John Clifford, 9th Baron Clifford
edit... that Lancastrian lord John Clifford was killed, possibly by an arrow in the neck, the day before the bloodiest battle on English soil was fought, when the Lancastrian army was only a few miles away?Sourced from the 'Death and attainder' section.
- Reviewed:
*DYK pending*Template:Did you know nominations/Stroganina donated. Pay it forward. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Never had that before, User:7&6=thirteen - very nice! Err; as it happens I had just finished reviewing my QPQ, so if you want to pass that on to a more deserving case, no problems. But appreciate the though in any case :) — fortunavelut luna 15:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) and Deb (talk). Nominated by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) at 14:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC).
- Il n'y a pas de quoi. Pass it on to someone who is needy in the pending DYK reviews. Wikipedia is not a zero sum game. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This is a newly promoted GA and is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. The main hook facts have inline citations but "the day before the bloodiest battle on English soil" is not supported by the source, which states that the battle was "one of the bloodiest", or the article which states it was "possibly [the] bloodiest". So could you rephrase the hook accordingly, and personally I would leave out the last phrase about the army being a few miles away. QPQ seems to have been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
-
- ALT1:
... that Lancastrian lord John Clifford was killed, possibly by an arrow in the neck, the day before one of the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil? - @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Deb: Just a general suggestion that an infobox in the article would be nice. ---Usernameunique (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- ALT1:
Approving ALT1. This DYK is good to go, the possible infobox being a separate matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: What do you mean, the 'QPQ seems to be done? It was done- twice! Incidentally, the point about the main camp being a few miles away is actually the more important point of the two; the 'bloodiestness' of the battle is after all subjective (indeed, depending on one's criteria and perspective, Brunanburh or Naseby might be candidates), whereas the distance of Clifford from the main army is an historical fact. The point, you see, is that although he was a leading Lancastrian commander, the main army- in the words of X (historian whose name currently escapes me)- "either would not or could not come to his aid." Do you see the point? — fortunavelut luna 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure that his army coming to his aid would have been of much help if he already had an arrow through his throat. The failure to come to his aid was presumably that of the commander of the main army who sent him to capture the bridge but did not provide back-up troops once it was taken. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you know he already had an arrow through his throat, then you should tell the historians. Per NOTFORUM, this is not to discuss the historiography but rather that you removed the more accurate portion. And what about the QPQs? — fortunavelut luna 09:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure that his army coming to his aid would have been of much help if he already had an arrow through his throat. The failure to come to his aid was presumably that of the commander of the main army who sent him to capture the bridge but did not provide back-up troops once it was taken. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: What do you mean, the 'QPQ seems to be done? It was done- twice! Incidentally, the point about the main camp being a few miles away is actually the more important point of the two; the 'bloodiestness' of the battle is after all subjective (indeed, depending on one's criteria and perspective, Brunanburh or Naseby might be candidates), whereas the distance of Clifford from the main army is an historical fact. The point, you see, is that although he was a leading Lancastrian commander, the main army- in the words of X (historian whose name currently escapes me)- "either would not or could not come to his aid." Do you see the point? — fortunavelut luna 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't remove "the more accurate portion" or anything else, I just made a suggestion. If you want a different hook about the army not coming to his aid, you can propose it, but I thought ALT0 confusing. I accept that a sufficient QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: are you proposing an alt, or should we go ahead and promote ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, since this is DYK and we like to tweak the narratives... go ahead! — fortunavelut luna 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to ping Yoninah. — fortunavelut luna 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: OK, I'm ready to promote this, but I agree with you that the hook fact mentioned in ALT0 is hookier than the one in ALT1. I suggest:
- ALT2: ... that Lancastrian lord John Clifford was killed, possibly by an arrow in the throat, while the main Lancastrian army was only a few miles away? Yoninah (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Brilliant, many thanks 😙 you are, metaphorically Da Man. Great stuff! 👍 Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 19:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't remove "the more accurate portion" or anything else, I just made a suggestion. If you want a different hook about the army not coming to his aid, you can propose it, but I thought ALT0 confusing. I accept that a sufficient QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
