Template:Did you know nominations/Dungarvan Town Council

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dungarvan Town Council

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the records of Dungarvan Town Council of County Waterford, Ireland, reveal it to have been a personal asset of the King of Ireland in the 15th century?

• Comment: Seeking expansion of the topic. Will review one or two above me. Reference in the article under History and the descritpion of the town as a Seigniory of the King of Ireland which generally meant possession. ~ R.T.G 12:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Created/expanded by RTG (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I reformatted this entry and welcomed RTG and left note to author concerning a ref per para Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I added several footnotes to the article, having found the source for most of the content. I believe it's adequately sourced now. The length and dates check out as OK. However, wording may be a bit too close to the source.

The hook fact is supported by the quotation in the article, but it's not necessarily obvious to the modern reader that "As the Seigniory of Dungarvan was the most great and antient honour of the King of Ireland" means the town council was a personal asset of the king. If that hook is to be used, the article should be revised to explain it. Another hook might be a better option. Here's one idea:

• ALT1 ... that although the Dungarvan Town Council of County Waterford, Ireland, was formed in 1855, records indicate that a local authority existed in the town as early as the 15th century? --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• I rechecked the article and the main source. I don't think the article has the "too close to the source" issues I alluded to earlier. The original hook is problematic, but ALT1 is sourced. --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)