Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Brut Chronicle"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Northamerica1000
(Since no alt provided, removed: ** '''ALT1''':... that ...? <small>Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)</small>)
imported>TonyBallioni
(gtg)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
-->
 
-->
  
:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :*  -->
+
:* [[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] New enough (transcluded late/wrong date, but nom was made day of, and all the content was there.) Long enough. No copyvio or close plagiarism detected. Neutral and cited. QPQ done and the hook is interesting and short enough. Good to go.<p>{{replyto|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|Drmies}} really enjoyed reading this. A nice break from 17th century conclaves :) If you wouldn't mind a quick stylistic comment: the article seemed a slightly heavy on parenthetical comments that threw me off a bit as a reader. Not a huge issue, but the one thing that stood out to me. Anyway, great work and thanks for the interesting read. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 
 
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 03:44, 8 June 2017

Brut Chronicle

  • ... Did you know that in medieval England, the Brut Chronicle was one of the most-copied chronicles of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries?[1]
  • Symbol confirmed.svg New enough (transcluded late/wrong date, but nom was made day of, and all the content was there.) Long enough. No copyvio or close plagiarism detected. Neutral and cited. QPQ done and the hook is interesting and short enough. Good to go.

    Template:Replyto really enjoyed reading this. A nice break from 17th century conclaves :) If you wouldn't mind a quick stylistic comment: the article seemed a slightly heavy on parenthetical comments that threw me off a bit as a reader. Not a huge issue, but the one thing that stood out to me. Anyway, great work and thanks for the interesting read. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)