Template:Did you know nominations/Longleat Priory
- 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 Ashwin147 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Longleat Priory
[edit]- ... that Longleat Priory was suppressed in 1529, seven years before Henry VIII started his Dissolution of the Monasteries?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zamorano Eighty
- Comment: On 5 April 2013 the article was expanded to 4,297 bytes by an unregistered user but none of that addition had even a single word that had anything to do with the priory. With that non-relivant addition removed the article stood at 163 bytes and has now been expanded to 7,565 bytes.
5x expanded by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 20:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC).
- This is not a complete review, just noting that Eupedia appears to be a Wiki (not a reliable source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- That's not the reference used for the hook and was only used for an extra reference of an already reliably referenced fact... I've removed it anyway.--Rushton2010 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
←I am starting to review this now. The issue mentioned by the nominator under the Comment heading above makes the article history appear bizarre and non-standard. Essentially it was a combination of a copyvio of five paragraphs from here (not relevant to the article subject) and several paragraphs from the WP article about Longleat House, which is also not relevant! So I am happy to treat this nomination as if this set of revisions did not happen, and therefore consider this an expansion from a one-sentence stub. If anybody else has any views on this, please say. Anyway, the full review will follow shortly... Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Per the suggested approach at Wikipedia:Copyvio#Dealing_with_copyright_violations, the article has been rewritten from scratch within the timeframe for DYK. Most info comes from one source—the Victoria County History, whose unrivalled quality as a source for matters of English history I can vouch for, from years of experience—but other sources (the Valor Ecclesiasticus and English Heritage's PastScape database, both also of suitable quality) are also used. Although one reference is to About.com, it merely supports detail from the VCH. I have tidied the ref formatting. Info from the VCH has been summarized suitably so that there is no close paraphrasing. As this is one of our more obscure and little-documented priories, I am happy that the article is comprehensive enough at this time. (In terms of other possible sources, I wonder if the Wiltshire edition of Pevsner would give any further info...?) Happy to verify this on this basis. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, forgot to say: QPQ review confirmed; and Dissolution of the Monasteries could be linked in the hook. I'll leave it up to whoever moves the hook to Prep. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 21:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)