Template:Did you know nominations/Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury[edit]

(

)

... that Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury (pictured) was hung in the Lord's Pavilion after Kent County Cricket Club were unable to afford the insurance?

Reviewed: 2012 Summer Paralympics

Created by The C of E (talk). Self nominated at 09:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC).

Length, date, hook, all OK. Hook confirmed by online citation. The article is most interesting (to me at least) and is well written and well referenced. (Personal note: I am a life member of LCCC, and have not been influenced in any way by this!) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, may someone new to DYK comment? (Being here because I heard there was need for more people to check facts in DYK.) I found the hook confusing, not knowing who Kent are, what Lord's Pavilion is, what the linked title meant. How about ... that the Kent Country Cricket Club had to sell their famous painting, Kent vs Lancashire at Canterbury (pictured), because they could no longer afford to insure it?

Agree the article has lots of references and reads well, and there are no paraphrasing issues, it's clearly a lot of work and well done. These are accuracy fixes after checking the references. Do I post them here or on the article, or can I just change the article?

add "in the UK" in the lede
source two does not give the 2005 date in the article
is there a source for the 7.77% statement?
source says Harris suggested an action shot, not that he stipulated it
is there a source that says it was Harris who chose Tayler? Otherwise that sentence currently looks like synthesis
source 3 does say the painting is viewed as a reminder of an era, but does not say that is because of its colours, so that statement looks like OR
re source 7, the quote actually refers to the whole painting, not just Blythe in it
in the history section, the statement that Kent retained a print on display after loaning the original to MCC is not contained in the given source (source 1)
source 8 is synthesis; though it confirms Kent had debts it doesn't mention selling the painting because of them as the article asserts
source 9 sentence should really read "Kent sold the painting but announced that they were going to permit it to remain at Lord's in the short term"
correction: Sotheby's guide price was 300,000 to 500,000, not 50,000
source 11 doesn't say anything about Brownsford's intentions as asserted in the article
source 13 does not refer to that print being the original one

184.147.147.28 (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See my message to you on your IP talk page. Also, the hook just has to hook people in to read the article with bare basics, it doesn't necessarily have to give them the full details. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the above discussion has been resolved. I confirm that the nomination fulfils the DYK criteria. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? If by "resolved" you mean ignoring much of it, then yes. If you mean the inaccuracies pointed out have been fixed, then no, not in many cases. It is never okay to put an article with known inaccuracies on the main page. Right now the lede still has the 2005 date that was correctly questioned: the sale occurred in June 2006 (see also source 13), even if it was announced in late 2005 (see source 5). The source numbers have moved around since the above list; the source 3 comment mentioned above (now source 5) is right on the money about the "colours". The source 7 (now source 9) comment is right on the money, and it's an easy fix. I think the source 9 comment above may be about the phrase preceding source 12; in this case, the suggested change isn't helpful, since the whole sentence is problematic: it seems to be asserting that Kent would leave the painting at MCC until the sale, but the source is from after the sale and is talking about what would happen to the painting after the sale. The source 11 comment (now source 13?) about Brownsford's intentions: I don't believe I saw any source that had any quote from Brownsford; I thinks I read descriptions of his Foundation as generally buying artwork so it can be kept on display in Britain, but that's not given in the cited source. Finally, I'd recommend wikilinking "Lord's Pavilion" if the original hook is to be used, as most people are not going to know what that is. All in all, I think the comment by 184.147.147.28 was an excellent effort by a new Wikipedian I hope we see more of, given the care and thoroughness given, and expect the article to be updated to address the issues found before it is finally approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset:, it isn't easy to write long articles about subjects like this for me so mistakes do slip in from time to time which I try to fix as best I can. I have since fixed the issues you've raised here. Please review. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The C of E, sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you. I felt that a great deal more needed to be done, and I have just finished my edits. I have removed some incorrect, misinterpreted, or irrelevant material, revised some source usage (and eliminated a couple of unneeded sources), and also done a fair amount of copy editing as well. I believe it reads more smoothly now, and is ready for promotion; however, given the extent of my work, I don't feel I can give that approval. As I noted on the article's talk page, it would be nice if the sale price wasn't given as two different numbers between six sources; is there something out there that might settle the discrepancy? Even the BBC couldn't agree with itself... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have found a source saying it is the bigger number. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

New enough (for 1 May) and long enough. Hook supported by online citation #2. QPQ OK. Two external link connections are very slow (espncricinfo.com) but they do connect eventually. Three external BBC links are flagged as redirects, but they work fine. I accept C of E's further research and final edit regarding sale price and citation. One minor issue: One disambig link ("Blackheath") needs correcting.--Storye book (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Blackheath has been disambiguated. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)