Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony Carleton

Anthony Carleton

 * ... that Anthony Carleton son-in-law sold New Place to Shakespeare?
 * Reviewed: South Branch Roaring Creek

Created by NinaGreen (talk). Self nominated at 02:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good!  SarahStierch (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sarah, "Looks good" or "Good to go" is not an adequate review for DYK. Please say what it is you reviewed—size, age, neutrality, hook interest and sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc.—so the person looking to promote it can follow up. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. This is the first time someone ever questioned my reviewing of a DYK. I checked all of it - it's boring (neutral), it's long enough (size), it's new (age), and I thought it was interesting. Hell, I even copy edited the sentence it cites for clarity. No worries here. SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting the full results. It does help. Removing the ? icon I previously posted, so that your earlier icon holds sway, though I'm moving it to the start of the line so it's easier to for someone looking for hooks to promote to see. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The son-in-law's article is recently 5x-expanded. Double-DYK hook opportunity? --PFHLai (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea, but not certain how to go about it or what the double hook would consist of. Suggestions? NinaGreen (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg You'd need to do another QPQ review, but you'd need to do that to submit the other article separately, so it's a wash in terms of reviewing. We'd add another DYKmake template above. There's no reason not to basically reuse the hook above, i.e.:
 * ALT1: ... that Anthony Carleton son-in-law Hercules Underhill sold New Place to Shakespeare?
 * However, there's a bit of an issue with either hook, since the sale was originally made by Hercules's father William in 1597, who was poisoned a few months later by Hercules's older brother, Fulke. So the sale had been made; this second "sale" was more of a legal confirmation of the original sale. I can't tell whether changing "sold" to "resold" might cover this definite oddity, or whether "confirmed his poisoned father's sale of" could be used instead of "sold". There's also an issue with Anthony Carleton's article, as he's variously listed as having died in 1576 and 1590. I think the former is correct, based on the body of the article; since Hercules was born in 1581, that would mean that his wife Bridget (Anthony's daughter) was several years old than him (not unusual). BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching the error re his date of death; I've fixed it (it was his brother George who died in 1590). The hook could be slightly reworded from your ALT1 suggestion to incorporate the fact that William Underhill sold New Place, while Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale:
 * ALT2: ... that Anthony Carleton son-in-law Hercules Underhill confirmed the sale of New Place to Shakespeare?
 * Would that work? NinaGreen (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think another QPQ review is needed, as there's already one done for Template:Did you know nominations/Hercules Underhill. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The Hercules Underhill article is new enough and long enough. Referencing is fine. No issues with copyvio/close paraphrasing checked by random googling of various sentences. No concerns regarding neutrality or BLP. The Anthony Carleton article already reviewed by SarahStierch; the issue identified by BlueMoonset is now fixed by NinaGreen. ALT2 is essentially the same as the original reviewed by Sarah. This is good to go. Promoter, please also close the other nom template. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)