Talk:Siege of Durham (1006)

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scotland

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Medieval Scotland

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Middle Ages

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

A fact from Siege of Durham (1006) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 June 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Uhtred became Earl of Bamburgh after his victory at the siege of Durham, even though his father seems to have still been living?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Durham (1006).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Uhtred became earl of Bamburgh after victory at the siege of Durham, even though his father seems to have still lived?
ALT0a... that Uhtred became earl of Bamburgh after his victory at the siege of Durham, even though his father seems to have still been living?

Source: Uhtred's victory brought him to the attention of Æthelred II who recognized him as earl even though Waltheof seems still to have been alive

ALT1: ... that Uhtred led forces at the siege of Durham as his father was too old to fight? Source: Uhtred's father, Waltheof, described as being of great age and thus unable to lead the counter-attack, shut himself up in the fortress at Bamburgh, leaving the resistance to the Scots to his son
ALT2: ... that after the siege of Durham tradition states local women were paid a cow each to clean the heads of the fallen attackers, which were then mounted on spikes from the town's stockade? Source: [Tradition has it that local women were paid one cow each to cleanse the heads of Scottish dead, for mounting on spikes on the town stockade]
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Delta (emulator)
Comment: When designing the hooks I was thinking including Uhtred's name might draw some interest because of The Last Kingdom (TV series), but not sure if I am overestimating the shows reach?

Created by CSJJ104 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 10 past nominations.

CSJJ104 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I will gladly review this in the coming days! WatkynBassett (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created on 19 May 2024‎ and nominated on the same day. It is thus eligible.
The article is sourced. I did two spot checks and the references checked out.
The article is written in a neutral and non-promotional tone.
Earwig did not pick up anything noteworthy.
QPQ done.
Hook review: I think the original hook is the best one and it is ODNB sourced and thus viable. I nevertheless have small questions:
- In my opinion "earl of Bamburgh" should be wikilinked. Probably to Rulers of Bamburgh (even though Earl of Bamburgh redirects to Earl of Northumbria [is this a redirection mistake, I am not knowledgeable here]?)
- The flow of the wording might be improved: What do you think about "... that Uhtred became earl of Bamburgh after his victory at the siege of Durham, even though his father seems to have still been living?"
- "his father" should probably also be wikilinked to Waltheof of Bamburgh - what do you think?
- Thanks for creating free and interesting knowledge! I will approve this nomination once these small questions have been addressed! WatkynBassett (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created Alt0a to address the above suggestions. I have no strong feelings about whether this is better than the original. The question about Earl of Northumbria vs Rulers of Bamburgh is a question I've no clear answer for. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this again I notice Waltheof of Bamburgh is a stub. I'm unsure if this might be an issue for inclusion in the hook?

While I have no issue with whichever hook the promoter chooses when that point is reached I do like Alt2 as being distinct from the sort of hook which typically appears on DYK. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the hook. In my experience many hooks with doubtful reliability are extensively discussed and often challenged at the promotion stage or even later when the sets are put together therefore, I did not pick the more unusual hook ALT2 (which has the qualifier "tradition"). I think ALT0a is fine and that a stub article is wikilinked is no issue at all. I approve hook ALT0a.

WatkynBassett (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]