Template:Did you know nominations/Houses of the Church of England General Synod
- 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) 05:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
House of Bishops (Church of England), House of Clergy, House of Laity
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
Church of England
- ... that the House of Bishops, House of Clergy and the House of Laity each hold veto power over proposed Measures of the General Synod of the Church of England (logo pictured)? Source: BBC
- ALT1:... that the Church of England's (logo pictured) House of Laity replaced the House of Commons as the representatives of ordinary churchgoers at the General Synod, alongside the House of Bishops and House of Clergy? Source: Guardian
Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
- House of Bishops (Church of England): 1906 characters created May 20, 2018; House of Clergy: 2280 characters became a non-redirect May 20, 2018; House of Laity: 2696 characters became a non-redirect May 20, 2018. Thus, articles appear long enough and new enough. Surprisingly, despite the common themes, redundant content is not an issue that affects the length consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Content is neutral and cited properly. It is free of copyvios.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- QPQs done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Why is the proposed image only in two of the three articles?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- The copyright release seems to be curious. I doubt that the creator of the logo was the uploader.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hook is short enough.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hook content is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
we need to resolve the image.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Reviewing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Thank you for the review, with regard to the image, I had assumed that as a crop of File:Logo of the Church of England.svg then it would have been fine but I agree, the creator defiantly is not the copyright holder so that would need retagging so I suppose we can switch the image for this one where the tag is correct? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- O.K. I reviewed this late last night. I may have been tired. The cropped version of a PD file is PD. I think the cropped file needs some retagging, but I guess you are O.K. I am not sure about DYK rules. Is it O.K. for an image to only appear in some of the articles?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Based on precedence, like this recent one, I would say yes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
, You are all set!
