Template:Did you know nominations/Ripon Parks

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 Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ripon Parks

(

)

Toothwort flowerhead

... that Ripon Parks contains colonies of the parasitic toothwort (pictured)? Source: Online Atlas and Natural England citation

Reviewed: Die Wolke
Comment: Created in userspace, moved to mainspace 27 January 2020

Moved to mainspace by Storye book (talk). Self-nominated at 10:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC).

Cardinal Wolsey

ALT1: ~~... that Ripon Parks was once a deer park held by the Church for the bishops of York and Ripon, including Cardinal Wolsey (pictured)?~~ Source: High Batts report page 6

Sorry Gerda, we actually edit conflicted as I was publishing my review. But feel free to re-review, and also perhaps comment on my alt?

The article is long enough, in date, and well sourced. QPQ has been done. AGF on the reliability of some of the sources, which are published by the bodies responsible for its upkeep, so should be ok. Images are free use, and nothing problematic on the copyvio detector using the cited sources. The first hook checks out fine - perhaps an interesting alt could be:

ALT2: ... that the yellow star-of-Bethlehem may be seen at Ripon Parks?

Alt 1 I'm less sure about, mainly with the use of Bishop of Ripon. The source suggests that it was owned by the Archbishop of York, which is the title which should be used here rather than bishop of York, which is from an earlier period than that referred to in the article. It was administered through Ripon, which was part of the diocese of York until 1836. From the sources it seems that the landowner was simply the Archbishop of York, administered perhaps on his behalf by the church authorities at Ripon, rather than there existing a title of "bishop of York and Ripon", or that there were two separate entities, the "bishop of York" and the "bishop of Ripon" which at times had ownership over the land. The article uses "subsequently the Canons of Ripon", while the source is less clear on the chronology, stating "until the 19th century was administered from Ripon, either by the Archbishop of York or the Canons of the Minster (later the Cathedral)." The source also says "Most of it still belongs to the Church Commissioners as successors to the Archbishop", rather than as the article has it "Much of the land is still in the possession of the Church Commissioners, who inherited it from the Canons of Ripon". Ecclesiatical history and landownership is a little tricky to disentangle, perhaps it would be better to drop Alt1 unless this can be clarified? I'll note the hook should be cited directly in the article, which at the moment it seems not to be. Spokoyni (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to revview this, later today. Looks great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that Ripon Parks was once a deer park held by the Church for the bishops of York, including Cardinal Wolsey (pictured)? Source: High Batts report page 6 Storye book (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with ALT3 as another choice. I can provide an image for that one, if required. Storye book (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think ALT3 is a useful simplification, but the discrepencies between the article and sources are still present in the former. Is there a reason you use 'bishop of York' rather than 'archbishop'? The ordering also seems odd, surely the archbishop held the land for (on behalf of) the church, rather than the other way around? Spokoyni (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

ALT4: ... that Ripon Parks was once a deer park held on behalf of the Church by the archbishops of York, including Cardinal Wolsey (pictured)? Source: High Batts report page 6
Hehe, you can bet that Wolsey wouldn't hold anything on behalf of anyone apart from himself. Storye book (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those prelates certainly did themselves suspiciously well in hunting parks and palaces for men in their line of work! ALT 4 looks good to me. If you perhaps can bring the article a little more in line with the sources and terminology that I've outlined then I think this would be a pass, and per Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules C.b, the hook fact should be directly cited at the end of the relevent sentence in the article. Spokoyni (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I've adjusted the article as requested. I shall take another look at the sources tomorrow (too tired after a long day to do it adequately right now.) Storye book (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Spokoyni, Storye book, it's been over a month; where does this nomination stand? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done a brief edit of the history section to bring a few bits in line with the sources, and what appears to be correct terminologies and chronologies. With that, I think this can pass all criteria, and is ready for promotion. Spokoyni (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits, Spokoyn. I am happy with all of it, except for "no longer" being replaced by "ceased to be." The situation according to the source (High Batts 2017 report) at the time of enclosure was that the deer had already gone and the hunting lodges were already ruinous, i.e. it was already no longer a hunting park. Your edit implies that it was the enclosure which ended the hunting. I have put it right. Storye book (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Since I'd like to use the flower image, I'm promoting this hook, verified by the sources:
ALT0a: ... that Ripon Parks contains colonies of the parasitic toothwort (pictured) and yellow star-of-Bethlehem? Yoninah (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)