Template:Did you know nominations/Patriarch Euthymius I of Constantinople

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Patriarch Euthymius I of Constantinople

(

)

... ~~that the hagiography of Patriarch Euthymius I of Constantinople (consecration pictured) is one of the main historical sources on the reign of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI the Wise?~~

ALT1:... that Euthymius I became Patriarch of Constantinople (consecration pictured) because his predecessor, Nicholas Mystikos, refused to sanction Emperor Leo VI's un-canonical fourth marriage?
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/One World Trade Center

5x expanded by Cplakidas (talk). Self nominated at 10:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC).

Long enough, well sourced. Approved for ALT1, as I think that hook will be of interest to more readers.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I missed. I don't see any copyright violations. I tried to check for QPQ but the site is down.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Besides "long enough" and "well sourced", you should also mention that you checked if it was new enough (created within 5 days); whether the hook ref is verified and cited inline; and whether or not you found close paraphrasing or copyvios. Other housekeeping checks include at least 1 inline citation per paragraph, and neutral tone. Best, Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I checked these things but didn't know I had list it all explicitly in the review. There are no copyvios or close paraphrasing that I can see, I'm assuming good faith as the sources are offline. Article was created in time, it presents a neutral view, the hook is cited, and every paragraph has at least one citation.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for updating your review. But 2 of the 3 sources are online; I changed one link to Google Preview mode. You can now compare the writing with the sources to see if there's close paraphrasing. Best, Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

No problems found, at least in what's available in Google Preview.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)