Template:Did you know nominations/Moubray House
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Moubray House
[edit]
- ... that 15th century Moubray House, the oldest building on Edinburgh's Royal Mile, was once the premises of Archibald Constable, the owner of the Encyclopædia Britannica?
Created/expanded by Mais oui! (talk), Unoquha (talk). Nominated by Mais oui! (talk) at 15:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Length and date are fine, but neither of the facts in the hook are referenced. Also, whereas it might be the oldest residence, to say it is oldest building when the fabric is new (17th century) seems like a Ship of Theseus problem. Do you have an alternative hook? Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The fact about Constable is referenced now. The building as it stands today is undoubtedly one of the oldest buildings on a very long street, (according to sources cited), I suggest ... that Moubray House, one of the oldest buildings on Edinburgh's Royal Mile, was once the premises of Archibald Constable, the owner of the Encyclopædia Britannica?
Unoquha (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK with the hook. Maybe not germane to the DYK nom but the assertion in the lede that it is the oldest building on the Royal Mile is patently untrue, and that it is the oldest residence needs referencing.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 11:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have modified the lede to make lesser assertions; it is "one of the" oldest etc., and indicated that the facade is probably early 17th century.Unoquha (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
QPQ needed. Article could probably do with closer editing, but good enough for DYK. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Further to a request by User: BlueMoonset at my Talk: I do not think that a QPQ is required. I only have 4 or 5 DYKs in total, and I think only a couple of them were self-noms. We are going back several years in some cases and I'm not sure how I could practically search for how many self-noms I have made.
- If you really do think a QPQ is needed, I am delighted to oblige when time allows, but last time I looked I could not find a single unreviewed DYK nom!! Is it ok to do a 2nd or 3rd review? --Mais oui! (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- No QPQ required. I recall seeing three self-nominations that had clearly been promoted to the main page and a couple that had been promoted but were nominated by someone else and thus don't count toward the total (plus very old ones where it isn't possible to tell), which would make this your fourth self-nomination. You have one more free self-nomination after this one, after which the QPQ requirement will kick in. Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are invariably a lot of unreviewed nominations; for example, there's a list currently at the bottom of the DYK talk page (WT:DYK) that I posted a few hours ago: it has over two dozen links to nominations that need attention from early and mid-August. Most are completely unreviewed. I'd go for those, since it doesn't count to simply duplicate an existing review.
- Twospoonfuls, it seemed to me that you were ready to approve this except that you thought it might need a QPQ. Since it doesn't, if it is ready, it's up to you to give the appropriate tick. If it isn't, then use the appropriate icon and let Mais oui! know what's left to do. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Mais Qui's line of credit is good enough for me. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 09:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)