Template:Did you know nominations/Phoulkon

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) 23:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Phoulkon

(

)

~~... that the Phoulkon, a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern Roman Empire, may have originated from the Germanic soldiers serving in the military?~~
ALT1: ~~... that the Phoulkon was a shield-wall infantry formation of the late and eastern Roman Empire, and the term may have originated from the Germanic languages?~~

Created by Sfjyu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the Phoulkon was an shield wall formation of the late and east Roman army which classical writers described as both a testudo and a phalanx?
ALT3: ... that the Phoulkon was an infantry formation of the late and east Roman army, and despite contemporary classical writers referring to it as both a testudo and a phalanx, was actually a shield wall whose name may have originated from the Germanic languages?

Created by Sfjyu (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

New enough, long enough. Must AGF on the citations; the hook matches citation 4 which discusses the possible Germanic etymology of the terms. Fewer than five DYKs; no QPQ needed. This should be good, even if it feels a touch bare. Raymie (t • c) 03:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, but I don't see the last hook fact, may have originated from the Germanic soldiers serving in the military? in the article. I see something about the word having a Germanic origin. The last sentence under Etymology may be supporting the hook fact, but it lacks an inline cite. Citation 4 does talk more about the Germanic military connection, so more could be added to the article to flesh it out. Yoninah (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll work on fleshing the article out just a bit more, and I also rephrased the hook to make it clear that the possible Germanic connection is a linguistic one.Sfjyu (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Sfjyu, I've restored your original hook wording, and listed the new hook wording (minus a comma) under ALT1, so that it's clear what the original query about the hook was referring to. I have struck the original hook because of the issues with it, but the wording can still be read. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sfjyu: Honestly? ALT1 is not hooky. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I've added two possible alternative hooks to the listing for review. Please take another look.Sfjyu (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ALT2 is over 200 characters, but ALT1 looks good. I reduced the overlinking. Raymie, could you review ALT2 please? Yoninah (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I can't access the source article, so I have to AGF on the ALT2 hook. Raymie (t • c) 23:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Raymie: Thank you. I can view the source and see it on p. 1: "The word <fulcum> is first attested in the sixth-century Strategicon of the Emperor Maurice to designate a compact, well-shielded infantry formation reminiscent of both the testudo of earlier Roman warfare and the hoplite phalanx of classical Greece." Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)