Template:Did you know nominations/John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk
- 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) 05:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk
edit- ... that in 1471, John de la Pole, 2nd Duke of Suffolk considered himself unable to attend parliament in London with a sufficiently large retinue for a duke, and so refused to do so? Source: Michael Hicks, ODNB
Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC).
Everything is right about this article. It is new enough, promoted to Good Article status on the day it was nominated. It is 14 times long enough. The article is written in a neutral manner and is replete with inline citations for all sections and paragraphs. Earwig found no copyright issues, I found no copyright issues, and in my estimation it is exceedingly unlikely that other copivio will be found in the text as presented. The hook is within technical policy, and I find it highly interesting. AFG of the offline source. QPQ complete. No image to check against. The quibble is most nitpicky: The sentence is not directly followed by the citation. The stream-of-thought paragraph is, but "So little, in fact, had his financial situation improved, that in the first parliament after Edward's return from exile- in 1471 - Suffolk refused his summons to attend parliament." should have a citation directly following. I could easily fix that myself, but then some nitpicky person might disqualify this review. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @78.26: Indulge my curiousity; How would you fix it yourself, if we could reassure ourselves as to the absence of nitpickery? (Which, this being DYK, we can't!) — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Add citation [1] to the end of the sentence. Sincerely yours, the nitpicker in chief (for the moment): 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @78.26: Just so :) and probably what I would do (urghh, and probably will have to). But the reason I ask is that I have exactly the same hold-up to a concurrent DYK. This is precisely the sort of rule that IAR was designed for. In fact it's precisely the rule that makes DYK behave in a polar opposite to the rest of the project. in order to satisfy DYK requirements, either the sentence has to be re-written (not necessarilly for the better), or it ends up containing two identical citations adjacent to each other. After all, I can't just move the existing citation a little to the left, as that would leave the text to the right uncited- worse, giving the impression that it is cited by something else further along. So, considering the WP:READER (who evetually comes to the article from the main page!)- how are they helped by having multiple identical refs cluttering up the prose? D'you see what I mean? — fortunavelut luna 17:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I agree, but you know, RULEZ. In its defense, a good reason for adding a citation to every singular sentence is that if further information is added between existing sentences, or of the order of presentation is modified, often subsequent editors forget to add the citation when they create a break in the cited material. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Such editors should probably not be allowed near an editable encyclopaedia then! :p very well, thank you for time 78.26 and apologies for wasting it for you. — fortunavelut luna 18:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, added that cite 78.26. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 18:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Such editors should probably not be allowed near an editable encyclopaedia then! :p very well, thank you for time 78.26 and apologies for wasting it for you. — fortunavelut luna 18:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I agree, but you know, RULEZ. In its defense, a good reason for adding a citation to every singular sentence is that if further information is added between existing sentences, or of the order of presentation is modified, often subsequent editors forget to add the citation when they create a break in the cited material. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @78.26: Just so :) and probably what I would do (urghh, and probably will have to). But the reason I ask is that I have exactly the same hold-up to a concurrent DYK. This is precisely the sort of rule that IAR was designed for. In fact it's precisely the rule that makes DYK behave in a polar opposite to the rest of the project. in order to satisfy DYK requirements, either the sentence has to be re-written (not necessarilly for the better), or it ends up containing two identical citations adjacent to each other. After all, I can't just move the existing citation a little to the left, as that would leave the text to the right uncited- worse, giving the impression that it is cited by something else further along. So, considering the WP:READER (who evetually comes to the article from the main page!)- how are they helped by having multiple identical refs cluttering up the prose? D'you see what I mean? — fortunavelut luna 17:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Add citation [1] to the end of the sentence. Sincerely yours, the nitpicker in chief (for the moment): 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @78.26: Indulge my curiousity; How would you fix it yourself, if we could reassure ourselves as to the absence of nitpickery? (Which, this being DYK, we can't!) — fortunavelut luna 17:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- offlne source accepted AGF, article is ready for, and deserving of, mainspace exposure. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
