Template:Did you know nominations/William More (died 1600)

Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of William More (died 1600)'s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC).

William More (died 1600)

edit

Created/expanded by NinaGreen (talk). Self nominated at 02:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

  • This article has been massively expanded in the last few days (more than 5x). It is well cited and written throughout. Spot checks show no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. QPQ done. The citation given in the article for the fact in the hook points to a Google books version of a 1912 publication - but I couldn't see specific support for the claim in the hook. Does this count under AGF for offline sources?— Rod talk 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, Rod. The 1912 source is the most detailed one available, and the discussion of More's lawsuit is spread over pp. 170-2. I've added a citation to p. 170, which discusses the commencement of the lawsuit, and there is a reference to p. 172, which states that the court granted judgment in More's favour, that he got possession of the property, and that the Blackfriars was closed. Let me know if there's something further to be done. Best, NinaGreen (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok will take that on good faith.— Rod talk 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)