Template:Did you know nominations/David Baldwin (historian)

David Baldwin (historian)

 * ... that British historian David Baldwin successfully predicted the location of King Richard III's remains over twenty-five years before they were discovered?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thầy Temple

Created by Rushton2010 (talk). Self nominated at 01:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg All looks very good - nice work. violet/riga [talk] 22:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg If Baldwin made the prediction in 1986, as the given sources seem to agree on, then over thirty years after that would be sometime after 2016, which is three years from now. Even if the sources can't count, we can, and we should not be echoing their mistakes. An independent source that actually gives when the exhumation was (2012, according to the wikilinked article) would be nice. You could change "thirty" to "twenty-five" when making an ALT hook and it would work, but twenty-six years, plus or minus three to eight months, is not in any way "over thirty years". BlueMoonset (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't look for bigger issues when there aren't any. The error was entirely my fault -bad maths -dyslexic.
 * There's no need for additional sources or anything else -Both sources used for the hook are reliable and accurate -they list the correct "1986" date and one says "almost 30 years ago"; not "over" as i did. The error was entirely on my part- it was just my bad maths converting the date into years or I may have read "almost" as "over".
 * Either way, it was me and not the sources. And it has now been corrected in both the hook and the article. ---Rushton2010 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, but you may *not* remove any icon I have placed while reviewing this DYK nomination. The icon that had begun my earlier review has been restored. (Indeed, you should never touch any such icons used by any reviewers.) Thank you for changing "thirty" to "twenty-five", though it was done to the original hook rather than in an ALT hook as I did suggest (which has the effect of appearing to rewrite history, which is why we ask for ALT hooks rather than edited originals). My point about the 30 years was definitely alluding to the fact that one of the sources said "almost 30 years ago", which is a highly dubious bit of rounding on its part. The problem is, without any source that definitively puts the discovery in 2012—FN4 merely says "recent discovery", and FN5 says nothing about its timing at all—your only data is FN4's clearly impossible "almost 30 years". Although I said above that a source for the exhumation date would be "nice", upon further consideration I believe it's a necessity: you need a hard valid data point on the discovery date that you can pair with the FN4/FN5 1986 prediction and get your calculated "over twenty-five" value. Without an exhumation date, the hook isn't adequately supported by source citations (a DYK requirement), even if it is now accurate. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * His 1986 discovery is referenced 3 times in the aritlce : ; including the original source

Richard's Exhumation in 2012 is referenced:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you added sources for the 2012 date, though ten of them seems beyond excessive: one or two reliable ones is quite sufficient. Yet after all that, the article itself still doesn't say "2012" anywhere, and still needs to. It's a simple fix, and should take you a couple of minutes at most ... and please trim away the majority of the new cites for the sake of your readers. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushton2010 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg The "2012" has been added to the article; I've taken it upon myself to remove the least germane of the ten new sources, since that wasn't "Done" as requested. Hook facts are in the article and supported by inline source citations; per DYKcheck, article is new enough and long enough at 1700 prose characters; a spotcheck against sources using Duplication Detector finds no close paraphrasing; hook is interesting; both hook and article meet BLP and neutrality requirements; and QPQ was performed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)