Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/David Baldwin (historian)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Allen3 talk 10:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

David Baldwin (historian)

[edit]
(
)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thầy Temple

Created by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC).

  • If Baldwin made the prediction in 1986, as the given sources seem to agree on, then over thirty years after that would be sometime after 2016, which is three years from now. Even if the sources can't count, we can, and we should not be echoing their mistakes. An independent source that actually gives when the exhumation was (2012, according to the wikilinked article) would be nice. You could change "thirty" to "twenty-five" when making an ALT hook and it would work, but twenty-six years, plus or minus three to eight months, is not in any way "over thirty years". BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't look for bigger issues when there aren't any. The error was entirely my fault -bad maths -dyslexic.
There's no need for additional sources or anything else -Both sources used for the hook are reliable and accurate -they list the correct "1986" date and one says "almost 30 years ago"; not "over" as i did. The error was entirely on my part- it was just my bad maths converting the date into years or I may have read "almost" as "over".
Either way, it was me and not the sources. And it has now been corrected in both the hook and the article. ---Rushton2010 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm very sorry, but you may *not* remove any icon I have placed while reviewing this DYK nomination. The icon that had begun my earlier review has been restored. (Indeed, you should never touch any such icons used by any reviewers.) Thank you for changing "thirty" to "twenty-five", though it was done to the original hook rather than in an ALT hook as I did suggest (which has the effect of appearing to rewrite history, which is why we ask for ALT hooks rather than edited originals). My point about the 30 years was definitely alluding to the fact that one of the sources said "almost 30 years ago", which is a highly dubious bit of rounding on its part. The problem is, without any source that definitively puts the discovery in 2012—FN4 merely says "recent discovery", and FN5 says nothing about its timing at all—your only data is FN4's clearly impossible "almost 30 years". Although I said above that a source for the exhumation date would be "nice", upon further consideration I believe it's a necessity: you need a hard valid data point on the discovery date that you can pair with the FN4/FN5 1986 prediction and get your calculated "over twenty-five" value. Without an exhumation date, the hook isn't adequately supported by source citations (a DYK requirement), even if it is now accurate. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
His 1986 discovery is referenced 3 times in the aritlce :[1][2]; including the original source [3]

Richard's Exhumation in 2012 is referenced: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

  1. ^ University of Leicester (Sep 28, 2012). "New study from historian who 'predicted' whereabouts of the remains of King Richard III". Retrieved 18 August 2013.
  2. ^ "Leicester historian who predicted discovery of Richard III site in book launch". Retrieved 18 August 2013.
  3. ^ 'King Richard's Grave in Leicester', Transactions of the Leicester Archaeological and Historical Society; Volume 60, (1986).
  4. ^ "University of Leicester announces discovery of King Richard III". University of Leicester. 4 February 2013.
  5. ^ Meet Philippa Langley: the woman who discovered Richard III in a car park | Radio Times
  6. ^ "The search for Richard III – completed". University of Leicester. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
  7. ^ "Richard III: King's reburial row goes to judicial review". BBC News. 16 August 2013. Retrieved 19 August 2013.
  8. ^ "Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's". BBC. 4 February 2013.
  9. ^ Burns, John F (4 February 2013). "Bones Under Parking Lot Belonged to Richard III". The New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2013.
  10. ^ "Richard III dig: Eyes of world on Leicester as Greyfriars skeleton find revealed". Leicester Mercury. 13 September 2012.
  11. ^ Bower, Dick (Director) (27 February 2013). Richard III:The Unseen Story (Television production). UK: Darlow Smithson Productions.
  12. ^ Wainwright, Martin (13 September 2012). "Richard III: Could the skeleton under the car park be the king's?". The Guardian.
  13. ^ Rachel, Ehrenberg (6 February 2013). "A king's final hours, told by his mortal remains". Science News. Society for Science & the Public. Retrieved 8 February 2013.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you added sources for the 2012 date, though ten of them seems beyond excessive: one or two reliable ones is quite sufficient. Yet after all that, the article itself still doesn't say "2012" anywhere, and still needs to. It's a simple fix, and should take you a couple of minutes at most ... and please trim away the majority of the new cites for the sake of your readers. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC)
  • The "2012" has been added to the article; I've taken it upon myself to remove the least germane of the ten new sources, since that wasn't "Done" as requested. Hook facts are in the article and supported by inline source citations; per DYKcheck, article is new enough and long enough at 1700 prose characters; a spotcheck against sources using Duplication Detector finds no close paraphrasing; hook is interesting; both hook and article meet BLP and neutrality requirements; and QPQ was performed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/David_Baldwin_(historian)&oldid=995014478"