Template:Did you know nominations/Ramiro I of Asturias

Referencing

Ramiro I of Asturias

 * ... that Ramiro I of Asturias ' legendary 844 A.D. victory over the Moors in the Battle of Clavijo may be entirely mythical?
 * Reviewed: Antinomian Controversy
 * Comment: Roughly 5x expansion by translating material from es-wiki. I believe the hook is well cited. Much of the remainder of the article is not, although I think it is a vast improvement from what was there before. No offense will be taken if people decide this is not DYK-able. I'd say it's borderline myself, though I think the hook is a good one.

5x expanded by Jmabel (talk). Self nom at 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC). User:The Emperor's New Spy (talk) also made some small contributions.




 * Symbol confirmed.svg QPQ done.
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Comment says article was copied from Spanish, but this is problematic per Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know this conversation where the consensus appears to be direct translation like this does not count.  Beyond this issue, much of the article is unsourced and contains fact tags that absolutely would need cleaning before serious consideration could be given to the nomiantion.  (That and a copyright tag saying article was copied from the spanish. ) --LauraHale (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a direct translation, as comparison of the two articles will readily show. But I agree that some of the Spanish language material was poorly sourced, which is why I said "I'd say it's borderline myself." Conversely, (1) the copyright tag in question merely acknowledges drawing significantly on the Spanish-language article, just as I drew on the earlier form of the English-language article; we don't seem to have a tag to say anything that subtle so I used the most appropriate one we've got. And (2) most of the fact tags I added myself to the English-language content that was already there, where the Spanish-language content seemed to say otherwise; in one case I also added it to the contradictory Spanish-language material, because it was also uncited. Again "No offense will be taken if people decide this is not DYK-able." I have little independent knowledge of Iberian history in this period myself, and it's not a topic on which I'd want to do major research. From what reading I've done on the period, the sources are always murky, and sorting out factual disagreements would be work for a proper medievalist scholar, not for me. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 15:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, until the article is fully sourced, it cannot go. I'm inclined to say this needs a week to be fully sourced, and it not by then, just straight out fail this because it requires a lot of work. Conversely, if you know article won't be fully sourced by then to DYK length, then just remove now.--LauraHale (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no way to know that someone else won't fully source it, but I certainly don't plan to. However, unless I'm mistaken, there is no requirement for DYK that the entire article have good inline sources, only that the hook has one. In any case, at the risk of repeating myself, "No offense will be taken if people decide this is not DYK-able." If it's not, it's not. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not fully supported by inline citations. --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)