Template:Did you know nominations/Arthfael Hen ap Rhys


 * 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: rejected by BencherliteTalk 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Arthfael Hen ap Rhys

 * ... that it is likely that King Arthfael the Old had little authority over his family?


 * Reviewed: Ray Jones (footballer, born 1988)

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 08:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC).


 * Source please for him being called "Arthfael Hen the Old". In Welsh, "Hen" means "old". I doubt he's known as Old Arthfael the Old. BencherliteTalk 09:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I have made the change. Thinking about it, we could possibly have a hook that says: Alt1 ... that King Arthfael was a Hen?  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Silly and not funny. Now I don't have time at the moment to check the article in detail but the hook is more definite than the source. Please can you think of a new better hook? I'm not sure about the reliability of the sources at present either. BencherliteTalk 09:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the hook. With regard to sourcing, this was the best I could get from what meagre information there was around him.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Source 1 is a self-published family geneology website - unreliable. I don't know why source 4, the Cynon Culture website, counts as a reliable source for 8th/9th-century history. Source 2 and 5, Historyfiles, is a website maintained by a digital design company that accepts readers' submissions, so we have no idea who wrote or checked its sources. That leaves source 3, the bumper book of kings. There must be better sources out there for this period of history (printed books, for example), but an article based virtually entirely on amateur websites isn't something we need to display on the main page. And the hook is still poor - the article says that it is unlikely that he had any direct authority or control over his competing family members, namely the uncles, cousins and nephews who ruled elsewhere in the divided kingdom, but the hook makes it far more general and less accurate, implying that he had no authority over any member of his family for any purpose. BencherliteTalk 07:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I will look into changing the sources.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made the changes.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 13:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Source 1 is unreliable, as it's just a self-published book based largely on internet searches and internet genealogies, according to the introduction, not proper scholarship with proper sources. Source 2, I can't find the material that apparently backs up the sentence (no mention of Arthfael at page 275). Source 4 is actually a 16th-century history transcribed by a notorious literary forger, Iolo Morganwg, so it would better to use modern untainted scholarship. And the hook is still problematic. I'm not going to review this again but feel free to get someone else to look at this if you still want this to appear on the main page. BencherliteTalk 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Very well then.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 10:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg User:Bencherlite's concerns stand; it seems source 1 is from BookSurge, an Amazon's print-on-demand subsidiary through which anyone can self-publish. Moreover, at just 1504 characters, the article is too close to the minimum for my liking. Intelligent  sium  02:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this now. CofE has made no efforts to address my concerns and another reviewer agrees with them. No point in cluttering up the nomination page further. BencherliteTalk 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)