Template:Did you know nominations/Hamo (Dean of York)

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 MeegsC (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hamo (Dean of York)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the dispute over Hamo's appointment as treasurer of York was resolved when his opponent gave him a church instead?

• ALT1:... that Hamo was the last treasurer of the Diocese of York to hold that office while also Archdeacon of the East Riding?
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Halman
• Comment: Any other suggestions for hooks quite welcome.

Created by Ealdgyth (talk). Self nominated at 16:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC).

• Article is two days old, long enough at 2.5K of prose, and there are no obvious copyright violations. I personally prefer ALT1, which is cited to Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1066–1300: Volume 6: York: Archdeacons: East Riding. Or, we could go for
  ALT2: ... that Hamo was nominated to be Archbishop of York, but Henry II did not approve?
  Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  Outside review that Ritchie's ALT2 is supported by the source and that his gut feeling about copyvio is backed up by earwig's tool.
  
  My own feeling is that the original hook (since struck by its authoress) was more interesting than the other two, but it would need to be rephrased a bit: when I first read it, I thought that Hamo had bribed the electors/king/pope with a new church. Reading the article, Hamo was bought off by giving him the prebends from a separate church in order to withdraw his candidacy ...which (fwiw) is far more common than the article's current "candidature", although the OED backs up that Eald's vocabulary is just better than mine and that some people even say "candidateship". — LlywelynII 00:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Point of order - I did not strike the hook ... see diff. I'm open to other wordings on hook 1 ... I suck at hook writing. As for the vocab... too much time reading obscure Victorian historians is to blame. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Then I have unstruck it with rephrasing and more links to the items in question. As stated, I prefer it. — LlywelynII 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• So everything seems in order. Now we just need a 3rd party to come and choose among the OH, ALT1, and ALT2. — LlywelynII 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)