Template:Did you know nominations/Julian D. Richards


 * 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 Gatoclass (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Julian D. Richards

 * ... that Julian D. Richards is currently investigating the camp of the Great Viking Army (pictured invading England)? Source: University of York: "he is currently collaborating with the University of Sheffied to investigate the winter camp of the Viking Great Army at Torksey."
 * ALT1: ... that the archaeologist Julian Richards is not the archaeologist Julian Richards?
 * Reviewed: Joseph Salter (missionary)

Created by Usernameunique (talk). Self-nominated at 04:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Interesting, on few but good sources, no copyvio obvious. I think the ALT says nothing about him. How do you feel about an infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I have returned this from the queue because the article is sourced only to the professor's bio from his place of employment. I'm not sure that that alone meets WP:GNG. Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you expect, besides his 68 publications, often cited, translated? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles are supposed to be sourced to independent sources. Is a place of employment an independent source for this sort of thing? I'm not sure, therefore I pulled the article for further discussion. Better to do that than have it unceremoniously yanked from the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I know all this, but still not what you expect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , the thousands of citations should be sufficient for notability. I've also added a few publications related to the hook, and used one as an additional reference. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, Chris Caple ran on the front page with a similar source (departmental bio mentioning he started excavating when 14), which wasn't a problem. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem for me at this time is that I am busy in the queues and really need to brush up on PROF and the nuances of V to make a judgement about this, and I just don't have time to do that right now. Since you appear to be getting impatient, I am going to request that  and  take a look at this, as they are far better versed in the prevailing standards pertaining to PROF. If the article is a pass from them, it's a pass from me. Gatoclass (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, . I didn't mean to sound impatient (nor am I), so sorry if I've come across that way on this and the Stephen J. Herben Jr. nomination. Where fully understanding the nuances of that hook takes a bit of an investment in reading, with this one I think the issue—notability—is pretty clear, with nearly 2,000 citations on Google Scholar alone. My second comment above was inspired by the thoughts that 1) resolving the issue here can be done quickly, and 2) this would thus be an easy hook to push forward while the backlog purge is still ongoing, and with approved hooks dwindling. Regardless, I appreciate your work vetting the hooks in the queues. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , my main concern with this article is not really PROF so much, but whether or not an article sourced almost entirely to the subject's bio from his workplace meets V. Is that a sufficiently independent source? I'm not sure. One would think, also, that somebody truly notable would have been written about in clearly independent sources, but regardless, if Yngvadottir and Drmies are prepared to accept the sourcing, so am I. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * This is tricky. PROF is met, based on the citations, but with DYK I also expect there to be much coverage. After all, the citation indices don't show up in article space, and yeah that bibliography looks very thin. BTW, Usernameunique, you didn't list that co-edited volume; as you may know, when I run into such biographies I cut the list of articles and leave only the books... Now Google News reveals there's some coverage (he's a "TV archeologist", and works (?) at Current Archeology?), so beefing up the ref list shouldn't be impossible; stuff like this isn't great but it's not nothing, and there are better ones there. I added a review for his book (more may be found) and a note from Archaeology (magazine); I don't doubt that there's more. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, I'll see what I can add. The TV archaeologist is a different Julian Richards, see ALT1. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Shoot. But I added stuff for the correct one, right? It would be embarrassing if I hadn't. BTW I am pretty sure I'm messing up your reference system--sorry about that, but I don't doubt that you can straighten that out easily. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the additions—I'll get to the formatting in a moment. You got the right one—Julian D. Richards (this guy) excavates Viking stuff, and Julian C. Richards (other guy) presents Blood of the Vikings, so it just welcomes confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , how does it look now? Including the ones you added, there are now six new references, covering the topic of the hook (excavations of the Viking camp), and his most widely cited work (Viking Age England). Also added an image to the article and hook. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that's a lot better, isn't it! Thanks. Hey--that second reference, "Internet Archaeology", shouldn't that read "About Us"? Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , it has "About Us" as the title in the Bibliography. Generally when shortening footnotes for a source without a named author, I go for the institution name (sometimes with brief description) followed by a date (if there is one). See references 1 ("University of York Bio") and 7 ("ScienceDaily 2017"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, oh, yes, I see there's more. Sorry, but I don't like that at all--if you have only a few references you can find them, but the eye looks for the first element in the line...and at first I couldn't find it. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (pre-coffee) Looks good to me now; yes, it was a bit thinly referenced before. That White Rose article needs some love. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Looks like the White Rose article is the creation of its manager. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)