Talk:Keldholme Priory election dispute
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Gog the Mild in topic Main page appearance
 | Keldholme Priory election dispute is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 14, 2019. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 8, 2019. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a disputed Priory election in early 14th-century Yorkshire led to nuns being placed under interdict and later being accused of being "daughters of perdition" by their own Archbishop? | |||||||||
| This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Source query
editThe source Burton, J. E. (2015) indicates a page of p. 123144 which looks to be incorrect. Should this be pp. 123–144? Keith D (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- You're dead right, Keith D, if you could sort it :) I've got a cold coming on and have taken the night nurse, so no more from me tonight. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 23:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Done I have modified it. Hope the night nurse works. Keith D (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Many thanks, Keith-D. ——SerialNumber54129 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Main page appearance
editThis is to let people know that this article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 14, 2019, and specifically paging the FAC nominator(s), Serial Number 54129. It would be good if someone checked that the article needs no amendments. The main page blurb text can be viewed and edited at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 14, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Serial Number 54129, and other interested editors. This is to let you know that as a part of preparing this article for TFA I will be lightly running an eye over it for MoS-compliance and grammar, and possibly tweaking a little of the language to ensure that it is at it's very best for its appearance on the main page. If you have any queries about any of the edits don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Arguably not worth bothering. Very little to pick at. I have read this before and chuckled, but I don't know why I didn't get involved at FAC. Cracking work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Shame, I was looking forward to a Massive Edit War that ends up at Arbcom :p Cheers! I guess this was what you were referring to then?! All is clear! *wonders how many RE classes mention this in the curriculum :D ——SN54129 14:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, you could always go for an entirely gratuitous punch up 
. Yep, that must have been the final inspiration - not that some of your Edwardian scallywags and at least one other ecclesiastical article don't also pass the oddball test. I must have been reading it entirely for pleasure; I don't know what came over me! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Shame, I was looking forward to a Massive Edit War that ends up at Arbcom :p Cheers! I guess this was what you were referring to then?! All is clear! *wonders how many RE classes mention this in the curriculum :D ——SN54129 14:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Arguably not worth bothering. Very little to pick at. I have read this before and chuckled, but I don't know why I didn't get involved at FAC. Cracking work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
