Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh III of Cyprus

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 Jack Frost (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Hugh III of Cyprus

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that a procession cross cracking the skull of the Jewish royal physician was interpreted as a bad omen for King Hugh III of Cyprus?
  Source: "When he landed at Tyre, the omens were unfavourable . His standard fell into the sea . When the clergy came in procession to meet him the great Cross that they carried slipped and broke the skull of the Jewish court physician." (Runciman 1954)
  • ALT1:... that when King Hugh III of Cyprus tried to force a marriage on his vassal Lady Isabella of Beirut, the Egyptian sultan Baibars declared himself her protector?
    Source: "He distrusted King Hugh, and on his deathbed next year he put his wife and her fief under the protection of Baibars . When Hugh tried to carry off the widow to Cyprus , to remarry her to a candidate of his choice , the Sultan at once cited the pact that Hamo had made and demanded her return." (Runciman 1954)

• Reviewed: Bicellariella ciliata

Improved to Good Article status by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 23:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: My - a fascinating article, I enjoyed reading that. Thank you. I noted that the date given on this template for Runciman is 1954, whereas in the article it's 1989. I'm guessing that it's either a typo, or that 1954 is an earlier edition of the same book by Runciman. I don't believe that the date difference affects the nomination, but it would be helpful if you could please confirm that the above quotes are from the book referenced in the article? Storye book (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are two editions of the same book. I see you take reviews as seriously as I do! Thank you for your kind comment. Surtsicna (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. All sorted now. Storye book (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)