Template:Did you know nominations/Coventry Cross (monument)
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 14:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Coventry Cross (monument)
[edit]
- ... that the medieval Coventry Cross was covered with gold, and so bright that people could hardly look at it in sunlight?
Created/expanded by Mum's taxi (talk). Nominated by Fayenatic london (talk) at 22:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/H. Bonciu (created 31 August). - Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
| Format | Citation | Neutrality | Interest |
|---|---|---|---|
| rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) |
- AGF offline source. Small question, though: the article says the re-gilding was in the 1600s, and I don't think that counts as "medieval". rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- According to the article on the Middle Ages, they ended in the 15th century. When was the church originally gilded? Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the hook ALT1 "... that after the re-gilding of the Coventry Cross in 1688, it was said people could hardly bear to look directly at it on a sunny day?" would be better (1688 isn't during the medieval period)? Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
| Length | Newness | Adequate citations |
Formatted citations |
Reliable sources |
Neutrality | Plagiarism |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) | rʨanaɢ (talk) |
- Citation formatting is pretty ok. Refs 1 (Historic Tour of Coventry) and 7 (Floregium urbanum) could do with having work/publisher information added. Actually, those references both seem to be from personal/unreliable websites (the first one says the information comes from McGrory 2003, which you apparently have access to, so could just be replaced by that)...but the amount of text cited to those references is not huge so it can be overlooked for DYK purposes. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have verified and improved two of the citations, including the one for the hook.
I used the word "medieval" to distinguish it from the recent construction. Originally, I wasn't sure whether the comment about the brightness also applied to the 1544 cross, but now it is clear that it was made after 1688. I therefore have no objection to the hook being changed, and the author previously indicated on my talk page that he does not mind what hook is used. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- ALT2 (modified from Rock Drum's proposal): ... that after its 1688 re-gilding, the Coventry Cross was so bright that people could hardly bear to look directly at it on a sunny day?
ALT2 and ALT1 are both fine. rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- ALT3: ... that after its 1688 re-gilding, the Coventry Cross was too bright to look at on a sunny day?
- I inserted the missing words "re-gilding" and "the" in ALT2, and offer a shortened ALT3. – Fayenatic (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)