Template:Did you know nominations/Rosamund's Bower

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 Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Rosamund's Bower

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Rosamund's Bower in progress

• ... that in the patience or card solitaire of Rosamund's Bower (pictured), the aim is to reunite Fair Rosamund with King Henry? Source: Arnold, Peter (2011). Card Games for One. 2nd edn. London: Chambers. ISBN 9780550102010 pp. 124–125.
  • ALT0a: ... that in Rosamund's Bower (pictured), the aim is to reunite Fair Rosamund with King Henry?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Beth Taylor (mezzo-soprano)
  • Comment:

Created by Bermicourt (talk). Self-nominated at 19:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new and long enough. Article is well written and appropriately cited, but there's some close paraphrasing in the Background section that should be rephrased ("To conceal his illicit amours from his queen", "contrived to penetrate the labyrinth, confronted her rival, and forced her to choose between the dagger and the bowl of poison"). Hook is cited, clever, and short enough; maybe this is just my own ignorance of card games, but "patience" isn't a familiar term to me and makes the hook confusing. I think the hook would be clearer and more hook-y as just "that in Rosamund's Bower, the aim..." QPQ also has not yet been completed. Ping me when you've rephrased those passages and completed your QPQ and I'll pass this nomination. Morgan695 (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This has been sitting for over five weeks, and the QPQ is still not done, nor have there been any edits to the article to address the issues raised in the review. Bermicourt, if the QPQ and edits have not been done within seven days, the nomination will regretfully be marked for closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I did QPQs for other articles, but missed this one. Thanks for prodding me. It's now done. Bermicourt (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
      • @Morgan695: I've proposed an ALT0a more inline with your suggestion- QPQ's been done, anything else? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
        • @Theleekycauldron: Earwigs is still pinging close paraphrasing on the section I mentioned. Morgan695 (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
          • @Morgan695: I did my best at a rephrase? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
            • Approved for both hooks; I'll defer to the promoter to make the choice. Morgan695 (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment — Five links in the hook are honestly too much, but I am not sure which one(s) to remove. The hook should ideally have only the bolded link, and the bolded article should have all necessary links. In this case however, you can go with bolded link as well as patience, but not all. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Promoted ALT0a to Prep 1. I went with ALT0a partly to avoid the 5 wikilink problem that KS mentions above. Z1720 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)