Template:Did you know nominations/Nicholas Exton


 * 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

No action on "citation needed" tags

Nicholas Exton

 * ... that in 1388 Nicholas Brembre was tried for treason and hanged, and his fate was sealed by his successor as London Mayor, Nicholas Exton, one of those who "knew him best"? Oliver, C., Parliament and Political Pamphleteering in Fourteenth-century England (Woodbridge, 2010), 104.
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Christian Gottlob Barth

Improved to Good Article status by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 15:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC).


 * I wish you had pinged me. This might have got resolved sooner than it has. Those points have now been clarified, with wikilinks and further info. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 13:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake! It didn't occur to me that you might have nominated the article but not bothered to watchlist the review. Since the article is now tagged with a "major edit" template, I'll review it afresh whenever the rewrite is completed.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After the FAC, you mean? Surely, by then, it will no longer be eligible, surely? btw   &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre. 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean; I don't know anything about any Featured Article nomination. The article we're presently discussing for Did You Know, Nicholas Exton, currently has the "In use" template at the top, and the language is broken and incomplete (e.g., the "London" section ends with "This made the"), presumably because you are in the midst of rewriting and expanding it. You have now substantially changed the article since I reviewed it the first time, making my previous review pointless. I cannot review the article until it reaches a stable version; please indicate here (or by pinging me, if you prefer) when you are done making large changes to the article, and I will be happy to review it again at that point.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * &, looks like this article is now stable enough to be fully reviewed? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thank you for the heads-up, I'll review it again in the next couple of hours.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have re-reviewed the article; if you can cite the three points carrying "Citation needed" templates, then it will be ready for approval.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Despite a notice to their talk page (quickly archived without the requested response to this nomination page), the "Citation needed" templates remain. I'll place one more notice on the nominator's talk page (under their new username), and hope that they respond here, as it would be a shame for this article not to appear as a DYK hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: the latest notice has produced results: the nominator wrote that I am going through each individual reference in turn, which as you can imagine may take some time, so we'll wait for the results from that process, since work is being done to address the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg I pinged the nominator on their talk page on January 24, giving them until the end of January to actually address the issue, since nothing had been done in the interim. They replied there (rather than here, as requested) on January 27, saying they'd forgotten about it. The implication was, presumably, that they would do something, but over 250 Wikipedia edits later, nothing has been done, and February 2 is nearly over. Marking for closure as unsuccessful, though of course if the issues are addressed before this closes, the review can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)