 | Osbern fitzRichard was nominated as a History good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 5, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | A fact from Osbern fitzRichard appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Did you know nomination
edit- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- ... that by holding Richard's Castle as a tenant-in-chief in 1086, Osbern fitzRichard is considered a feudal baron?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Hull (1642)
- Comment: other hook suggestions welcome
Created by Ealdgyth (talk). Self-nominated at 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
- Article looks good to me (though I have not checked the source). I am just worried that the hook does not quite make sense. How about the hook below? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that, because he held Richard's Castle as a tenant-in-chief in 1086, Osbern fitzRichard is considered a feudal baron?
- Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
- Approved ALT1. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: please provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Please do something more productive with your time than demanding that reviews look just how you want them to. Your time is yours to waste, but you are also wasting my time, and preventing a perfectly good article from hitting the main page for the sake of bureaucracy. My tick confirmed that the criteria were met; that's what it's there for. If you want me to say the words again, I will do so for the sake of the article, but encourage you to ask yourself why you felt the need to demand this.
I am about to provide "a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met." This sentence is "a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met" . I just provided "a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- @J Milburn: if you haven't noticed, DYK is nothing but bureaucracy. Please spend a few hours building a prep set and see how easy it is to make sure all the criteria have been covered in every review. Yoninah (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)