Template:Did you know nominations/English invasion of Scotland (1400)

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 Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

(

)

... that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 was delayed until the king's tents arrived?

Created by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk). Self-nominated at 14:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC).

• No issues found with article, ready for human review.

- ✓ This article is new and was created on 15:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 6359 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (0.0% confidence; confirm)
  - Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.

• No overall issues detected

- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 115 characters
- ✓ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has fewer than 5 DYK credits. No QPQ required. Note a QPQ will be required after 4 more DYKs.

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay I rechecked to make sure that bot's review is accurate and it is. The article is newly created and is of acceptable length - so is the hook. This does not reveal any sign of copyvio. QPQ not needed since it's the nominator's second nom and thus is exempt from it. The hook is sourced in the article by a source that does not seem to be available online (so assuming good faith). FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

New enough, long enough, lots of cites, no copyvio and no QPQ needed. Good to go. Articles like these are precisely why I do DYK, so I can read material like this that I would otherwise never come across. I took the liberty of making some whitespace additions to break up longish paragraphs, and expanded the lede to consider the entire article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Maury Markowitz very kind words and some nice sub-editing, v.g. As opposed to dumbassery. For which, see below :D _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this hook will do because it is misleading, implying as it does that it was the absence of the king's tents which caused the delay. Can I suggest instead

ALT1 ... that the English invasion of Scotland in 1400 by King Henry IV proved to be nothing much more than a "war of words"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Clever" hooks like this one have a long and glorified history here in DYK. The statement is factually correct as it is, he did wait until his tents arrived, and it certainly makes it hookier. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Clever hooks have a long and glorious history at DYK. (My personal favourite was the one about the hamburger tycoon who was taken to court and grilled on the witness stand.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK then. Replacing the tick so that this nomination can proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand; the only mention of tents in the article is this line:
Army supplies were received (although in some cases, with much delay — the King's own tents, for example, were not despatched from Westminster until halfway through July).
How does this jibe with the hook fact? Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If the tents arrived half way through July, and they left on the 25th, that means they waited at least until the tents arrived. It does not say, nor imply, that they waited because of the tents. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. Let the reader beware! Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm very sorry. It does not say that the tents arrived halfway through July, it says that they were sent from London halfway through July. These were not times of fast shipping: if they left July 15 or 16, would they even have arrived in the north by the time the army left York? The article doesn't actually give the arrival date. This is a parenthetical remark, and one that is not even sourced immediately after the sentence in question as required by DYK. More clarity is needed if this hook is to be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the original hook is not well sourced, and IMO neither the original hook nor the proposed alt are very interesting anyway. Suggested alts:
ALT2: ... that King Henry IV's English invasion of Scotland in 1400 has been described as "utterly futile"?
ALT3: ... that Henry IV's invasion of Scotland in 1400 was the last Scottish invasion led by an English king? Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"King Henry IV's English invasion" seems a bit redundant. (Henry IV was English king, so of course it was an "English invasion"). In ALT 3, "the last Scottish invasion led by an English king" is also weird because it wasn't a "Scottish invasion," but an English invasion of Scotland. I would suggest

ALT 2.5 (variation of ALT 2 with word dropped): "that King Henry IV's invasion of Scotland in 1400 has been described as "utterly futile"?

Neutrality^talk 20:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that ALT2.5 is good to go, AGF on offline source. Other criteria check out, as per above reviews: let's get this done, people. Vanamonde (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)