Talk:Pompey stone

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Pompey stone was believed to date to the early 1500s for over 70 years after its discovery in 1820 before it was revealed to be a hoax in 1894?

• QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Chaconne in G minor

Created by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This is my first review so I hope I did everything correctly. I think the discovery of a hoax is something that would be interesting to a broad audience, and the hook is properly cited. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Pawnkingthree-- apologies but this just came to mind, would you approve a rephrasing of the hook that I think is more concise? The date of discovery can be inferred from "over 70 years" and IMO makes the hook a little less clunky Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• ALT0b: ... that the Pompey stone was believed to date to the early 1500s for over 70 years before it was revealed to be a hoax in 1894?

• You know, you read my mind there... I was going to mention that there were possibly one too many dates in the hook. ALT0b is an improvement, definitely.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pompey stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• "New York circa" comma after NY.

• Added

• "moved to Albany" link.

• added

• "William M. Beauchamp did some" who was he? And can we find a better word than "did"?

• "conducted"? descriptor added

• "on display as a hoax" as an example of a hoax perhaps?

• sure

• "1520"[4]" need a full stop.

• yup

• "the 1911 capitol fire" I know it's a red link but shouldn't that be Capitol?

• sure

• "Intrigued by the stone, Cleveland brought the stone" brought it.

• done

• "blacksmith's" why apostrophe?

• I can't type all the time, cut

• "In 1841 Barber and... " avoid single-sentence paras.

• combined with the para below

• "In the 1860s...' same.

• ditto

• " ... of the European in North America." quote needs inline ref immediately.

• sure

• 'in 1894[18] upon' odd place for the ref, end of clause/sentence is fine.

• OK

• References are normally listed in alphabetical order.

• done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, The Rambling Man, are my responses satisfactory? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-peer review comments

• Citation 8 cites pages 8–10, but the full citation says the article is on pages 12–15.
• Can you dig up the original letters in the Syracuse Journal (referred to in Beauchamp 1911)?
  • I have seen physical copies in the OHA's office, but have not found them digitized. as of yet Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• The article on the Syracuse Journal says it was founded in 1925. Is this the correct paper, or was it something earlier under the same name?
• When did Avery and Willard carve and bury it?
• Any word on why the scholarly attention kept them from coming forward?
• "the most elaborate defense" — According to whom?
• The second paragraph in "Analysis" cites to the original sources, which I appreciate. But are there also any newer sources which discuss those analyses?
• well authenticated" — The open quotation mark is missing.
• "probably made by a companion upon his death in 1520" — Grammatically, this refers to the companion's 1520 death.
• The historian Berthold Fernow cited Homes in Justin Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America (1884). — What did he say about the stone/Homes in the 1884 book?
• "shrewdest of all Onondaga antiquarians" — According to whom?
• The Spanish Settlements Within the Present Limits of the United States — What year?
• Did Parker say anything more about the stone?
• "was able to see the original work" — What original work?
• "As of 2018" — Is there a current source?

Eddie891, I'm sorry it took so long to get back to this. My further comments are above—they're pretty minor. I like the way it reads, and think the edits you made help the article unfold well. As we discussed, if there are more sources out there from after the hoax was revealed, that would be great. But if not, that shouldn't hold the article back from becoming a featured article. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)