- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Launchballer talk 08:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Church of St Peter, Draycott
Font by William Burges
- ... that in 2006 the vicar of St Peter's, Draycott tried to sell the font?
- Source: Cite 6 Gavin Stamp, pages 120-122
KJP1 (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC).
There is a very nice image of the font on Commons to which this could be linked, but I don't know how to place it here without messing the page up.Another editor kindly helped out. KJP1 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not a review but I'd suggest proposing alternate hooks as the current hook may be confusing to readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I sort of take the point but, frankly, there is little of interest about the church except the intended font sale. I think, with the link, it is likely to be understood by most readers? KJP1 (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue isn't necessarily the hook fact itself but rather the wording's clarity. Readers might not necessarily get what "font" means in this case since when people think of fonts they usually think of written fonts. Maybe:
- ALT0a ... that in 2006 the vicar of St Peter's, Draycott tried to sell the church's baptismal font?
- The problem here is that it might fall afoul of WP:DYKBLP, though I'll leave that issue to the reviewer if that turns out to be an issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's very helpful, and I'm fine with expanding font to "church's baptismal font". As for WP:DYKBLP, he did try to sell it, and it did become a cause célèbre, albeit in the rather rarefied world of ecclesiastical law. But, as you say, we can see what the reviewer says. KJP1 (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here per DYKBLP is if it is unduly highlighting something negative about a living person. The article doesn't state if Price is still alive or not, but erring on the side of caution I was assuming that he was. Some of our regulars take DYKBLP very seriously and noms have been pulled or even rejected over it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article says that "the church attempted to sell the font", which is probably more BLP compliant. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I sometimes think getting a DYK approved is more challenging than FAC! The problem with "church", aside from our not having "the church tried to sell the church's baptismal font", is that it reads rather oddly. The church, as a building, doesn't make decisions, so it would be using "church" as a body corporate. I suppose we could try; "...that in 2006 the parish council of St Peter's, Draycott tried to sell the church's baptismal font?" Would that depersonalise it? KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1, I could do a full review later (assuming @Narutolovehinata5 isn't planning on doing one). That being said, I think the alternate wording could work if we're erring on the side of caution. For what it's worth, I don't really think the original hook violates WP:DYKBLP - the vicar tried to sell something, not commit a crime. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Epicgenius - That would be very kind, if you have time. And if you’re happy with the first hook, I’d be doubly pleased. I think the impact (such as it has!) is lessened if you take the vicar out. KJP1 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1, I could do a full review later (assuming @Narutolovehinata5 isn't planning on doing one). That being said, I think the alternate wording could work if we're erring on the side of caution. For what it's worth, I don't really think the original hook violates WP:DYKBLP - the vicar tried to sell something, not commit a crime. Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I sometimes think getting a DYK approved is more challenging than FAC! The problem with "church", aside from our not having "the church tried to sell the church's baptismal font", is that it reads rather oddly. The church, as a building, doesn't make decisions, so it would be using "church" as a body corporate. I suppose we could try; "...that in 2006 the parish council of St Peter's, Draycott tried to sell the church's baptismal font?" Would that depersonalise it? KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article says that "the church attempted to sell the font", which is probably more BLP compliant. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue here per DYKBLP is if it is unduly highlighting something negative about a living person. The article doesn't state if Price is still alive or not, but erring on the side of caution I was assuming that he was. Some of our regulars take DYKBLP very seriously and noms have been pulled or even rejected over it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's very helpful, and I'm fine with expanding font to "church's baptismal font". As for WP:DYKBLP, he did try to sell it, and it did become a cause célèbre, albeit in the rather rarefied world of ecclesiastical law. But, as you say, we can see what the reviewer says. KJP1 (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The issue isn't necessarily the hook fact itself but rather the wording's clarity. Readers might not necessarily get what "font" means in this case since when people think of fonts they usually think of written fonts. Maybe:
- I sort of take the point but, frankly, there is little of interest about the church except the intended font sale. I think, with the link, it is likely to be understood by most readers? KJP1 (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not a review but I'd suggest proposing alternate hooks as the current hook may be confusing to readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
- I'm going to err on the side of caution and recommend ALT1, the hook KJP1 mentioned above:
- ...that in 2006 the parish council of St Peter's, Draycott tried to sell the church's baptismal font?
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Epicgenius (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1 and Epicgenius:
Apologies for pulling this out of queue at the last minute, but I'm not convinced of the reliability of Heritage and History, CPO central, or the multiple CoE–connected sources in the article. Are there better replacements out there? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron - If you're unhappy with the sourcing, don't run it. KJP1 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up @theleekycauldron. I approved this because I thought the CPO/Heritage & History/church sources were okay, despite being slightly partisan toward their area of interest. However, I'll let KJP1 weigh in on whether these sources are reliable. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Epicgenius - Sorry for wasting your time. KJP1 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up @theleekycauldron. I approved this because I thought the CPO/Heritage & History/church sources were okay, despite being slightly partisan toward their area of interest. However, I'll let KJP1 weigh in on whether these sources are reliable. Epicgenius (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron - If you're unhappy with the sourcing, don't run it. KJP1 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
