Template:Did you know nominations/Brizlee Tower

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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Brizlee Tower

(

)

... that the elaborately Gothick Grade 1 listed Brizlee Tower (pictured) was built by the third 1st Duke of Northumberland who declared "they are my orders, it is my planting"?

Comments on a previous version of this DYK

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment: Note that the last section of the hook (and from it the Camphill Column may be seen) is not cited

Created/expanded by Tagishsimon (talk). Self nom at 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is uncited how does it pass the DYK rules? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- see rule 3: "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article." The hook does contain a fact cited in the article. It also contains an uncited fact, mainly so that a second new article can be included. My reading of the rules is that that is okay; that rule 3 is satisfied. Presumably had the intention been that all facts had to be cited, then the rule would say that. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I would interpret that as being one fact, one cite. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how you get from "hook must contain a fact cited in the article" to "all facts in the hook must be cited in the article". The two seem like different concepts to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The hook must contain [at least one fact] cited in the article ---> The hook may contain more than one fact cited in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it also follow, then, that "The hook must contain [at least one fact] cited in the article" ---> The hook may other facts not cited in the article.? This seems to me to be abouts as reasonable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I have noted your interpretation and requested clarification of rule 3 at
WT:DYK Crisco 1492 (talk
) 13:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems like the best thing to do. If it falls the other way, I guess we could excise the Camphill Column part and redo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Camphill Column, Alnwick can pass DYK review. The "readable prose size" is only 1280 characters, not 1500 as required. Much of the prose is word-for-word quotation from various sources. So perhaps you should improve that article separately and submit it with a different hook. Sharktopus ^talk 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm not able to find any more sources for that poor column. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook: Short enough, interesting enough, cited.

Article: New enough, long enough, images are fine. Spotcheck is fine. Neutral. "In part this may refer to the remodelling of the Duke's home park, on his orders, by "Capability" Brown." is uncited and may be considered OR.

Summary:

Please either delete or cite the sentence identified above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Done (until I can find a reference to tie it in). Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Rule 5 review: The Secret of the Nagas. Rule 5 rocks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to go!