Template:Did you know nominations/Marriage of Empress Theophanu

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 Fuebaey (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Marriage of Empress Theophanu edit

(

)

... ~~that the marriage of Empress Theophanu entered Theophanu into consortium imperii with Otto II?~~

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Catawissa Tunnel, Green Mountain Tunnel, Oneida Number One Tunnel, Oneida Number Three Tunnel (second usage)

Created by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nominated at 17:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Nice article, long enough, new enough and very well sourced. However, I think it may be mistitled - it should surely be the marriage charter of Theophanu (I see many references to the document as a marriage charter [1]). I'd therefore suggest a slightly more accessible hook, as follows, with a retitled article:

ALT1: ... that the Marriage Charter of Empress Theophanu gave the Byzantine princess Theophanu joint imperial authority with Holy Roman Emperor Otto II?

I think this would be clearer to the non-specialist who wouldn't be familiar with the term consortium imperii (which I'd think most people wouldn't have heard of). Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article and would be fine with that hook. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's great. We're good to go with ALT1. Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Prioryman: per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at this? Yoninah (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, had forgotten about that! Prioryman (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

for ALT1. The article's date of creation is November 23, the length is fine and the copyvio check didn't turn up anything unusual. Offline references are accepted in good faith. That's a nice article you've written.-RHM22 (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)