Template:Did you know nominations/Promontory Forts of Cornwall

The following discussion 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Promontory Forts of Cornwall

(

)

... ~~that the role of Promontory Forts in Cornwall has been debated for centuries?~~

!-- -->

Reviewed: Mary Parke

Created/expanded by Jowaninpensans (talk). Self nom at 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the under construction tag is still in the article - is that ready to be removed? Also, that map will have to be significantly reduced. The article is long enough and new enough, but the hook needs changing. It's bland at the moment, it doesn't refer to the forts in Cornwall specifically. It's vague (how many centuries?), it isn't cited in the article, and it's original synthesis - implying that the forts have been constantly discussed since William Borlase. The picture is pretty, but no explicit connection has been made. Also, you list Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Parke as the article you have reviewed, but I see nothing on that page. St Anselm (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the under construction tag. I suppose most Wikipedia articles are under construction, so probably silly to include it. I don't see any problem with the map, it shows quite clearly where the cliff castles are - why does it have to be reduced? There are more forts to add. I don't think the hook is bland, but if you believe it is why not suggest an alternative? How many centuries? Suggest you look at the link to see when Borlase was living. There are two citations at the end of the paragraph. I agree the picture is pretty but it is the promontory fort at Gurnard's Head. What did you expect to see? Battlements? With regards to Mary Parke I thought I did enough when I went through the article and did some editing. Perhaps you should look at the article history and let me know what I should have done. I suppose I could have written some patronising comments on the template but I usually try to be constructive with my editing! Perhaps the instructions as to what to do when you nominate an article to the Did you know section need to be clearer. I am doing my best with both the this article and with my contribution to Mary Parke – If it is not good enough than I apologise.Jowaninpensans (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you have had fewer than five DYKs, then you don't have to do the review. But reviewing means actually commenting on Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Parke. With regards to the picture, it doesn't appear in the article, which is required. With regards to the hook, it sounds like it is for the article promontory fort, rather than Promontory forts of Cornwall. I stand by my previous comments of blandness and vagueness, and your response doesn't make me inclined to pass the article for DYK. St Anselm (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture now added to the article. The map within the article is now a mess with the various captions on top of each other. My response was in reply to your patronising comments. Jowaninpensans (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues with hook and its sources—note that by DYK rules, hook facts must appear in the article and be cited no later than the end of the sentence they're in—remain unaddressed. As pointed out, the hook fails to meet a primary criterion for DYKs: it is not interesting. Is there another fact about the Cornish cliff castles that you could use? Perhaps, if cited, the local "cliff castles" name as compared to "promontory forts" might be a starting point. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree that the hook is not interesting, I found it quite intriguing, although it might perhaps be better expressed. I've yet to make a comprehensive assessment of the article however. Gatoclass (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have given the hook a tweak in response to some of the concerns raised above; still more to check on this article however. Gatoclass (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the first thing that would need to be addressed here is that there are several unexpanded sections in this article, these sections would need to be expanded before promotion per our standard rules. Gatoclass (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT1: ... that the original purpose of Cornwall's Iron Age promontory forts (example pictured) is still uncertain?

I'm verifying this article with the supplied alt hook as I think all the concerns raised above have now been met, while the article appears to conform with DYK requirements in other respects. Gatoclass (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To use this ALT1 hook, I think the article needs to explicitly state that the original purpose is still uncertain, with (as DYK requires) an inline source citation. It's sort of implied by the "Current thinking is ... could have been ..." sentence, but it needs to be stronger and supported. (Issues like this, incidentally, is why WP:DYKSG#H2 says "You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article."—it's important to have another pair of eyes. I've had more than one suggested ALT turn out to be flawed.) Once this is settled, I agree that the article seems ready in its other respects, and the hook is otherwise okay. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think that's a nitpick, the second paragraph of the article makes abundantly clear in my view that the purpose of these forts is uncertain, and it's supported by two references. But if you want to make an issue of it, maybe someone else should take a look. And yes, it is best practice not to approve one's own hooks, but this article has been waiting a long time for promotion and let's face it, a lot of hooks are clearly not getting sufficient scrutiny on this page in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, look, let's not make an issue out of this, since you have an objection to the above hook, I will try to come up with an alternative you find acceptable. It will have to wait until tomorrow however, because it's very late where I am and I'm about to log off for the day. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that defence may not have been the primary function of Cornwall's cliff castles? Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

- ref for alt 2 is reference #1 in the article, page 17. Gatoclass (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

ALT2 approved; hook is sourced, supported, and more interesting than its predecessors. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)