Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret of Bourbon (1211–1256)

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 sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Margaret of Bourbon, Queen of Navarre

(

)

~~... that Margaret of Bourbon was inconspicuous as queen but proved a determined regent after her husband's death?~~

Reviewed: Cyprien Liausu

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC).

ALT! ... that Margaret of Bourbon was inconspicuous as queen of Navarre but proved a determined regent after her husband's death?

Believe it or not, not everyone knows about Navarre. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And what do you tell them about Navarre by mentioning it as "Navarre"? Surtsicna (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You tell them it is Navarre, which you neglected to do. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not, as it is hardly a vital piece of information. The sentence is just as correct grammatically and just as "hooky" when more concise. Margaret was, as the article clearly explains, more closely involved with Champagne anyway (as was the House of Blois in general). Thank you for caring nevertheless. Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You should, under normal WP principles, and because otherwise people may well assume she was queen of France. It is not for you to strike out ALTs. Please stop being tiresome. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is entirely up to me to suggest a hook under normal DYK rules. You are free to propose an alternative, and I am free to dismiss it as the nominator. I have no idea why people would assume that she was queen of France - believe it or not, not everyone knows about Bourbonnais or the Bourbons. I also have no idea how such an assumption, however one may reach it, invalidates the hook. Please abstain from commenting on me and spare me from pathetic cynicism. If possible, also abstain from bothering me once and for all. Surtsicna (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that you are able to say you don't like an ALT but this may not be the final word. Plenty of noms are overruled on this. Silly me for thinking of reviewing one of your noms. I really can't work out where the "cynicism" is supposed to be. Rudeness perhaps. Are you sure you know what the word means? Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is in the very first comment you made here. If you prefer to be called rude, I will humor you - please, spare me your rudeness. What I can't work out is from where your long-standing hostility towards me originates. My memory is apparently failing me, and I suppose I will be left wondering. Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you don't know what the word means then. I have (or had) no hostility towards you at all. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for caring. Surtsicna (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Noting once again that " ... that Margaret of Bourbon was inconspicuous as queen of Navarre but proved a determined regent after her husband's death?" is a better hook. Do not remove or strike-through. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Explaining once again that is not. She was much more closely involved with Champagne, and nothing is achieved by stressing her connection to Navarre. The original hook is grammatically correct and entirely sufficient. Surtsicna (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The hook is entirely concerned with her being queen and then regent. Not saying what she was queen of is a nonsense. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No more "nonsense" than not specifying of what she was regent or who her husband was. Surtsicna (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, considerably more. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you say so, sure. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed. Reviewer should check both hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll have a look at this one, but bear with me – it's been a while since I've done this... —SMALL JIM 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Prosesize.js says the article has been expanded 5x or more (though I'd be happier if you added another 720-odd characters because I think the bulleted list of children actually forms part of the "readable text" and should therefore be counted.)

Article is mostly referenced, and though obviously I have to AGF on the two cited books, the online Medieval Lands reference also verifies some of the book content. I'm happy to trust that the editor doesn't do close paraphrasing. However Ref 3 should be expanded, maybe using Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley.

There don't seem to be any neutrality issues to worry about. QPQ done.

I don't like either of the hooks though. Assuming that the text follows what the sources say, no-one but the nominator has claimed that she "proved a determined regent" – can we have original research in DYK hooks? I think you need to focus on one incident from her regentship instead of relying on a generality. WP:DYKR: "The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source."

What about something vaguely humorous like:

ALT2 ... that Margaret of Bourbon stopped the Knights Templar buying Champagne land?

...if those last two sentences of the first para under "Regency" can be referenced. —SMALL JIM 21:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I expanded the article a bit more, as well as the reference. Ref 3 was a leftover from before expansion. Evergates says that she acted resolvedly, so this is not a case of original research. The reference got lost, however. I like the hook a lot! The humor is perfectly... vague. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. The only slight reservation I have is that if Evergates uses the rather uncommon word "resolvedly", perhaps you should use "decisively", "resolutely", or something similar instead. "...considerably large dower lands" has a similar ring – is the first word needed? But I'm into FA considerations here, so it's really GTG with ALT2. —SMALL JIM 13:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't hold back with suggestions. The article cannot become too good, can it? Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, Smalljim, DYK rules are that a reviewer cannot review a hook he himself has proposed, so we'll need someone else in to review your ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry BlueMoonset. I said I wasn't up to speed here :( Can't you do it? - it'll only take a second! —SMALL JIM 14:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

ALT2 is stated in the article, and sourced offline. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)