Template:Did you know nominations/Plantagenet Alliance
- 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 Allen3 talk 11:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Plantagenet Alliance
[edit]- ... that the Plantagenet Alliance went to court 529 years after Richard III died to complain that they
hadn'thad not been consulted on his place of burial?
- ALT 1 ... that the Plantagenet Alliance went to court 529 years after Richard III died to complain that their human rights had been violated because they
weren'twere not consulted on his place of burial? - Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tea production in Bangladesh
- ALT 1 ... that the Plantagenet Alliance went to court 529 years after Richard III died to complain that their human rights had been violated because they
Created by DeCausa (talk). Self nominated at 16:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC).
Article is new enough and long enough. No copyright issues detected. QPQ done. Article is neutral. However, the hook fact is not explicitly stated in the article, as required by WP:WIADYK. Pinging DeCausa. --Biblioworm 20:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm: good point! Hopefully, this edit fixes it. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: That's better, but to make it even more clear, could you put an introductory sentence in the "Litigation" section? Perhaps something like: "In 2013, 529 years after Richard's death, the Plantagenet Alliance filed a lawsuit because they were not consulted on his place of burial." Also, I just noticed that you put a "weren't" in the proposed hook; contractions shouldn't be used in formal writing, you know. ;) --Biblioworm 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm: I really don't think it's necessary...but have added to the article "In 2013, the Plantagenet Alliance commenced judicial review proceedings, complaining that they had not been consulted on Richard's place of burial, and which resulted in a court hearing in May 2014". "Filed a lawsuit" is too American :). Also, "529 years" is ok for a hook but is too tabloid-like (i.e. unencyclopedic) to put in the article - the date of Richard's death is in the article. Just to note the 529 years is calculated back from the hearing in May 2014. I've also fixed "weren't". DeCausa (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: That's better, but to make it even more clear, could you put an introductory sentence in the "Litigation" section? Perhaps something like: "In 2013, 529 years after Richard's death, the Plantagenet Alliance filed a lawsuit because they were not consulted on his place of burial." Also, I just noticed that you put a "weren't" in the proposed hook; contractions shouldn't be used in formal writing, you know. ;) --Biblioworm 00:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm: good point! Hopefully, this edit fixes it. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: Thanks. Hook is good to go. --Biblioworm 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)