Template:Did you know nominations/Brizlee Tower

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Brizlee Tower|Brizlee Tower}}

• ... that the elaborately Gothick Grade 1 listed Brizlee Tower (pictured) was built by the third 1st Duke of Northumberland who declared "they are my orders, it is my planting"?

{{hat|Comments on a previous version of this DYK}}

:*Comment: Note that the last section of the hook (and from it the Camphill Column may be seen) is not cited

Created/expanded by Tagishsimon (talk). Self nom at 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

:*

• If it is uncited how does it pass the DYK rules? Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• see rule 3: "Cited hook – The nominated hook must contain a fact cited in the article." The hook does contain a fact cited in the article. It also contains an uncited fact, mainly so that a second new article can be included. My reading of the rules is that that is okay; that rule 3 is satisfied. Presumably had the intention been that all facts had to be cited, then the rule would say that. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::*I would interpret that as being one fact, one cite. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:::*Can you explain how you get from "hook must contain a fact cited in the article" to "all facts in the hook must be cited in the article". The two seem like different concepts to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::::*The hook must contain [at least one fact] cited in the article ---> The hook may contain more than one fact cited in the article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::::: Does it also follow, then, that "The hook must contain [at least one fact] cited in the article" ---> The hook may other facts not cited in the article.? This seems to me to be abouts as reasonable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::*I have noted your interpretation and requested clarification of rule 3 at WT:DYK Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

::::::*Thanks. That seems like the best thing to do. If it falls the other way, I guess we could excise the Camphill Column part and redo. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:::::::*Agreed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think Camphill Column, Alnwick can pass DYK review. The "readable prose size" is only 1280 characters, not 1500 as required. Much of the prose is word-for-word quotation from various sources. So perhaps you should improve that article separately and submit it with a different hook. Sharktopus ^talk 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Oh dear. I'm not able to find any more sources for that poor column. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• Hook: Short enough, interesting enough, cited.

:Article: New enough, long enough, images are fine. [http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/duplicationdetector/compare.php?url1=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DBrizlee_Tower%26oldid%3D448320720&url2=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.robinkent.com%2F288.html&minwords=4&minchars=13 Spotcheck] is fine. Neutral. "In part this may refer to the remodelling of the Duke's home park, on his orders, by "Capability" Brown." is uncited and may be considered OR.

:Summary: 16px Please either delete or cite the sentence identified above. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

::Done (until I can find a reference to tie it in). Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Rule 5 review: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know_nominations%2FThe_Secret_of_the_Nagas&action=historysubmit&diff=449021677&oldid=449019372 The Secret of the Nagas]. Rule 5 rocks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• 16px Good to go!

{{-}}{{#if:yes|