Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Rennison

The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Rennison edit

Created/expanded by Worm That Turned (talk). Self nom at 15:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  • The main problem I have is that there is no clear citation that he was the last anvil priest. You also wrote, "There he claimed that he was known as "the Gretna priest", but did not dress like one and stated that he knew he was not one." but this statement was made by a witness, not Rennison himself. One alternative would be that you could remove the word last from the hook and the article, as he was clearly an anvil priest. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
    That's a very good point! I read it when at the Gretna museum, but never actually found a source to say he was the last one, and since they still have marriages there it is arguable that he wasn't. I've struck the word last, and added a date for context. WormTT(talk) 08:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    Also, regarding the term "witness", the Times article makes it clear that it is referring at one point to Rennison as the witness and another time referring to Mackie as the witness. In the case of "knowing he was not a priest" and in later years striking the word "priest" from the certificates, that was certainly Rennison. WormTT(talk) 08:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I noticed you added the year to the hook. That's obviously fine, but I think it sounds more intriguing without it, and readers might be less inclined to click it if they know it is an article on a rather older topic. Otherwise everything checks out. It was a very interesting read, and I particularly liked that you found newspaper sources. It's really neat to be able to click a reference and read a newspaper clipping on the subject from 80 years ago. Thank you for writing such a great article. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
    I've removed the year, you're probably right about that, I do prefer my hooks to be a little more intriguing. Glad you enjoyed the article. WormTT(talk) 09:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)