Template:Did you know nominations/Shadwell forgeries
- 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) 06:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Shadwell forgeries[edit]
- ... that the Shadwell forgeries, crude 19th-century fake medieval artifacts, are also known as Billy and Charleys, after the two London mudlarks who made many thousands of them?
- ALT1:... that the Shadwell forgeries, crude 19th-century fake medieval artifacts, are now sought-after collectibles in their own right? Source: They produced several thousand pieces in all, and their work is now quite sought after. As evidence of the extent to which a vision of the Middle Ages had penetrated popular culture, as a concrete realisation of that vision and as enduring proof of the gullibility of even the greatest scholars, they are unrivalled. British Museum
- ALT2:... that leading Victorian antiquarians were fooled by the Shadwell forgeries - fake medieval artifacts made by two illiterate London mudlarks? Source: However this collection is part of something much bigger, a clever forgery, conjured up by two illiterate mudlarks called William (Billy) Smith and Charles (Charley) Eaton, which fooled some of the most important historians and antiquarians in Victorian England.Hull Museums Collections
Created by Catsmeat (talk). Self-nominated at 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC).
At first glance, the article seems to be of suitable quality. Unfortunately, it does not meet the first criterium: it does not count as new. It was created in 2012 and has been neither expanded five times or promoted to GA in the 7 days preceding the nomination. My suggestion to Catsmeat is to bring the article to GA status. Then it will qualify for DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
The article is long enough and it does meet the newness criterium after all. I prefer ALT1, and it is properly sourced, concise and precise. I am, however, concerned by the fact that several paragraphs are not fully sourced. One paragraph does not contain any citation, which is clearly against the rules. Can this be addressed? Surtsicna (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)- @Catsmeat: Any updates? It has been a month since the initial review, and the issues have not yet been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The nominator has not edited the article since June 6, and despite currently being actively editing, has not responded to any of the comments in this nomination. Despite multiple pings and talkback messages, there has been no response from the nominator regarding the sourcing issues. As such, this nomination is now marked for closure as stale, unless the nominator responds here within the next few days. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies; you have already been extremely patient with me. But I just found myself both procrastinating and getting wrapped up in other things. I'll do my best to get the issues resolved in the next 48 hours. If they've not then been dealt with to general satisfaction, then I'll accept the closure of the nomination. Catsmeat (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Added some references; deleted some unreferenced text which I couldn't find the references for. I hope it's good to go. If not, then I'm happy to accept the nomination closure - it's entirely my fault a month has gone by before it was fixed.Catsmeat (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see no more issues so this should be good to go, rest of the review per Surtsicna.
. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see no more issues so this should be good to go, rest of the review per Surtsicna.
- Added some references; deleted some unreferenced text which I couldn't find the references for. I hope it's good to go. If not, then I'm happy to accept the nomination closure - it's entirely my fault a month has gone by before it was fixed.Catsmeat (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies; you have already been extremely patient with me. But I just found myself both procrastinating and getting wrapped up in other things. I'll do my best to get the issues resolved in the next 48 hours. If they've not then been dealt with to general satisfaction, then I'll accept the closure of the nomination. Catsmeat (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
