- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Stowe Missal
edit.png)
- ... that the Stowe Missal was written circa 750 and given its cumdach or case circa 1030 (pictured), with one new face added circa 1375?
- Reviewed: Moonax
Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk). Self nom at 00:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
 Looks to be properly formatted.
|
|
|
|
Citation in hook: Assuming good faith, the date it is written should be fine. The citation appears in the lead for information that is not repeated in the body. This feels like a bit of a concern. The citation for the pictured information is not clearly as the citation formatting appears to have four sources in a single footnote. This should really be cleaned up to show which source supports which bit of text.
'Interest: Not so much an issue of interest, but an issue of clarity for me. It took a bit of reading and rereading the hook and article to understand what it meant and thus wasn't interest. --LauraHale (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequate citations: Assuming good faith on the rest as texts are not readily available. Flickr link does not support text though.
Formatted citations: The author names in the notes section do not have the ability to click to get to the references section. The citation for the pictured information is not clearly as the citation formatting appears to have four sources in a single footnote. This should really be cleaned up to show which source supports which bit of text.
Reliable sources: Not my area of speciality. Sources generally look like they would be reliable given the topic.
Neutrality: Not my area of speciality but reads neutral from a non-expert perspective.
Plagiarism: Ran text against a plagiarism checker and no problems that I could see. (Plagiarised bits that popped up via Google were the article.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, but frankly you're making a bit of a meal of this. The main sources are in fact online via the links provided at the references. The Flickr link is said to be an image, and that is all it is. There is nothing wrong with the citation style, see WP:CITE. I've changed the hook slightly to make it clearer, but on an unfamiliar subject like this, with so little space, it is tricky. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not that familiar with the topic. The major issue for me was related to the image was the citation clumping, which made it confusing to figure out citations covered what. Looking at WP:CITE and I don't see any examples that are <ref>Cite 1. Cite 2. Cite 3. Flickr image.</ref> This made trying to figure out what was going on confusing. It still feels a bit confusing because I'm not sure what supports what and how the flickr image relates.--LauraHale (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the information will be in most of the sources cited, as it's pretty standard, but where they duplicate each other it's better to give both the older online source & the newer rather-hard-to-find one. Obviously the flicr image shows the thing that's just been described; that's how it "relates". There's no real reason to go from "c." to "circa". Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:CITEBUNDLE? Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Most of the information will be in most of the sources cited, as it's pretty standard, but where they duplicate each other it's better to give both the older online source & the newer rather-hard-to-find one. Obviously the flicr image shows the thing that's just been described; that's how it "relates". There's no real reason to go from "c." to "circa". Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to take over the review - it's a topic I can manage. If Johnbod and Laura Hale wouldn't mind. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me! Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
You're not going to like this, but the expansion seems slightly skimpy, unless I'm missing something or can't multiply. Otherwise the hook is fine (not much else you can do with it), the sources are fine (I looked at the online source) and AGF on the others, writing fine (I left an inline question about a single point), nice piece & interesting too. Add a bit & it will be good to go.Truthkeeper (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)- How so? I make it before (August) 556 chars, now 5317 - nearly x 10. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Because this is a little confusing. It's fine and good to go. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe I should have put in on the 24th or later, & I worked on it till the 26th, but it was all within the timelimits. They are spells btw, as in Harry Potter. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I thought they were spells as in Harry Potter. I'll remove the inline. It threw me a bit, but very interesting. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fine by me! Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)