Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk

[edit]
(
)

Created/expanded by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 18:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

  • Article was given GA status on 2 October and as such is well written, well cited and more than long enough. Hook is undoubtedly attractive, the only problem I have is the sentence/claim (in the "Estates and Income" section) isn't directly followed by an inline citation. Presumably the fact comes from the ONB (which is behind a paywall). Could do with the quote being copied to the DYK nominaton template, and an inline citation added to support it in the article. Sionk (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Done that Sionk. — fortunavelut luna 18:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll AGF that the fact is in the source. Good to go! Sionk (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The hook implies that he spent £2000 in his preparations for the campaign, when in reality, that sum was the cost to his pocket of living and fighting in France with his troops, so I think the hook needs expressing a different way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh goodie, here we are again.
The source states "His deep military commitment is uniquely documented in his receiver-general's minute account of the expenditure of some £2000 for the Agincourt campaign in order for him to be appropriately equipped, even down to the seat for his own privy." I.e. the two grand was part of the preparations.
...sûr la Thamise et Chelsea. Caio! — fortunavelut luna 10:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting. So the hook might be fairly accurate but the article is not. If you had quoted that passage during the nomination process as requested, I would probably not have raised any objection before promoting the hook. As things are, the £2000 either relates to the preparations for the campaign (ie a budgeted amount), or to the actual costs of the campaign. Which? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad to hear that this is fully in line with DYK guidelines then. Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
In case you hadn't noticed, I get criticised when I promote inaccurate hooks, so I try to avoid promoting them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I noticed indeed that you do seem to draw the occasional crushing remark! Wot gives?! — fortunavelut luna 18:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. I'm not trying to sabotage this nomination, just aiming for some accuracy. Here are the problems I identified:
  • Source "expenditure of some £2000" - Article "cost him £2,000" - Hook "cost him over £2,000" --ie, the hook is inaccurate because "some £2000" has become "over £2000".
  • Source "[documented] the expenditure of some £2000 for the Agincourt campaign in order for him to be appropriately equipped" - Article "The Agincourt campaign, for example, cost him £2,000" - Hook "his preparations ... cost him over £2,000". The point here is that when he left for France, he did not know whether the campaign would be over in weeks, or months or years, so £2000 must either be a figure for his preparations as you suggest, or a total figure for his costs of taking part in the campaign, which would only be known afterwards, and which would make the article inaccurate.
  • The hook is awkwardly phrased and needs reworking. Bringing in the privy seat is difficult unless you mention the detailed accounts. What would £2000 be in today's money? It must have been an enormous sum back then, would that make a better hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hooks need to be of limited length. The current hook seems fine in length and catchiness, but as Cwmhiraeth points out the word "over" needs removing. I suppose you could add the present day figure to the WP article (£2,153,699.23 according to [1]) and have
ALT1 "... that John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk's preparations for the 1415 Agincourt campaign cost him £2,000 (over £2,000,000 in today's value) and included a seat for his own toilet? Sionk (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
What about
Where are you (both) getting this £2,000,000 figure from?? The BoE... which reckons inflation @1.2%...?! Yeah right :D still, I could go for ALT1, just remove the unnecessary converation into sterling. — fortunavelut luna 18:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
ALT1a ... that John de Mowbray, 2nd Duke of Norfolk's preparations for the 1415 Agincourt campaign cost him £2,000 and included a seat for his own toilet?
  • Approving ALT1a, which also removes the link to the disambiguation page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/John_de_Mowbray,_2nd_Duke_of_Norfolk&oldid=806646073"