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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall: I'd suggest adding a word to clarify who Wallace is, e.g. a knight. However, this is not necessary. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, apologies but I've reopening this one as I have there appears to be an issue with it - the hook says that the three trees are "named after" William Wallace, but when I look at the articles only the third one Wallace Oak (Torwood) actually explicitly mentions that the name is "Wallace Oak" and that it is named after William. Similar cited lines, to explicitly say that the trees are named after him, are also required for Wallace Oak (Elderslie) and Wallace Oak (Port Glasgow). Thanks. Pinging DumelowEpicgenius — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The sources don't explicitly say the tree was named after Wallace, as I suspect it was too obvious (they refer to the Wallace stories associated with the trees and call the trees "Wallace Oak"). If this is an issue I suggest an alternative hook, though it loses something, I think - Dumelow (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I think ALT1 is okay as well, since it only says what's already mentioned in the article. epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Amakuru; I think, since you pulled the original hook, it would be best if you were the one to say whether ALT1 addresses all the issues you had. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: yes, that's absolutely fine and I'll restore the tick here. Approving ALT1. Sorry if it seemed like nitpicking, and you may well be right that the sources don't need to say it because it's obvious but better to be certain when it's on the main page! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru, nitpick away! You do a great job here keeping us all honest. Didn't mean my comment above to be a criticism, just a reasoning as to why the sources didn't mention the source of the name - Dumelow (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, apologies but I've reopening this one as I have there appears to be an issue with it - the hook says that the three trees are "named after" William Wallace, but when I look at the articles only the third one Wallace Oak (Torwood) actually explicitly mentions that the name is "Wallace Oak" and that it is named after William. Similar cited lines, to explicitly say that the trees are named after him, are also required for Wallace Oak (Elderslie) and Wallace Oak (Port Glasgow). Thanks. Pinging Dumelow Epicgenius — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: yes, that's absolutely fine and I'll restore the tick here. Approving ALT1. Sorry if it seemed like nitpicking, and you may well be right that the sources don't need to say it because it's obvious but better to be certain when it's on the main page! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)