Template:Did you know nominations/Vladislav of Bosnia

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 PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Vladislav of Bosnia, Jelena Šubić

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the Bosnian prince Vladislav was passed over in succession for unknown reasons, but nevertheless ruled with his wife Jelena in the name of their minor son Tvrtko?

Reviewed: Sajida Zaidi, Zahida Zaidi

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 21:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

According to my DYK-check, neither article has been expanded 5-times. What am I missing? Huldra (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case of Vladisav, the article was 464 prose characters prior to expansion, meaning a 5x expansion would required 2320 characters. At the moment, the article has 2106 prose characters, and is 214 short. It needs to be expanded further. In the case of Jelena, the article was 372 prose characters prior to expansion, would need to be 1860 to achieve 5x expansion; it's 2138 prose characters, so it's all set. (Huldra, the reason DYKcheck thinks Jelena hasn't been expanded is that it's picking up a pair of edits last August 31 that were an incoherent attempt to expand the article; the edits were reverted less than an hour later, so they don't count. DYKcheck isn't smart enough to make this kind of distinction, which is why we need to check the article history before the expansion began to see what actually happened.) Surtsicna, you'll need to expand Vladisav before the nomination can proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, User:BlueMoonset. I copy the text over to a new text-file, then see how many bytes that file is; is there an easier way to count the characters? Huldra (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I hate when I miscalculate the expansion. Is it good now? Surtsicna (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Surtsicna, Vladisav is now 2343 prose characters, so it's safely 5x. Huldra, the actual DYKcheck program, linked to in the DYK toolbox at the top right of this page, is the gold standard for getting the size: it also reports on a number of additional DYK criteria, including 5x expansion, whether the article has been a DYK or ITN before or is a recent GA, etc. There's information on what you need to do to start using it at the link. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed now that both articles are 5x expanded. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

These two articles are expansions and are new enough and long enough. The hook fact has an inline citation and is accepted in good faith. The articles are neutral and the sources are not available to me so I am unable to check for copyright issues. The only thing that worries me is the date of Vladislav's birth and the date of his father's death which seem inconsistent. Its difficult to be born six years after your father died! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, that kind of discrepancy should be enough to stop approval in its tracks. In any event, there's a DYK rule here that's relevant: WP:DYKSG#D10, which reads, If your article contradicts an existing article, the contradiction should be resolved one way or the other before your article is approved. In this case, the Vladislav article's very odd birth year of 1320, six years after his father died, is contradicted by Vladislav's mother's article, Elizabeth of Serbia, which gives an earlier birth year for Vladislav (well before his father died). Surtsicna, you're going to need to investigate the sources further, and include sources for the dates. Note that the article clearly says that Vladislav fled shortly after 1314 when his mother did, and returned in 1319, so the 1320 date is clearly untenable for many reasons. Perhaps the 1320 date refers to a Vladislav from a different branch of the family—it might be this Vladslav's sister Katarina's son Vladislav, for example. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

My guess is that the date of his birth and the flight of his family may come from different sources and the precise dates are lost in the mists of time because records of this period must be scanty/inaccurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a good catch. The biographical dictionary cited there as source for the approximate year of birth also says that his father died c. six years earlier, which was of course impossible in the 14th century. I suggest we simply remove the year. Surtsicna (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

In an effort to get this nomination moving, I have edited the article to remove the anomaly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, that unfortunately doesn't settle the D10 issue: the Elizabeth of Serbia article says Vladislav was born in 1295, yet you've added text here that instead states he was born in the early 14th century. If you hadn't added the text, then I'd be fine with it; as it is, you're not there yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother too much about the dates in the Elizabeth of Serbia article. They are unsourced and likely wrong, based on the fact that by 1314, the eldest son would not have been a "child" to flee with his mother, nor would he have needed a regent, being 22 by this time. I think this nomination is now satisfactory and should go ahead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

While the dates in the Elizabeth article are suspect, the addition to Vladislav's that he was born in the early 14th century using the source that claims he was born around 1320 does not pass the smell test: if it says 1320, six years after his father's death, the source's dating for him simply isn't usable at all. I've removed the phrase; as long as it stays out, I have no objections to the nomination's approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll try ticking this again, but really I consider 1320 to be the early 14th century and thought it a good compromise. However leaving it out entirely also works and I understand the point you are making. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)