A fact from Bating (leather) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile ArtsTemplate:WikiProject Textile ArtsTextile Arts articles
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 BorgQueen (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... that either dog feces, or hen and pigeon manure, were used by tanners to produce a soft leather? Source: Wood, Joseph Turney (1912). The Puering, Bating, and Drenching of Skins. London: Spon. OCLC 9336160, p. 1
Reviewed:
Comment: This is a newly created article, made on 5 March 2023
Comment Why spell it "fæces"? What I can find online all says that that's an archaic spelling. Cheers! Freedom4U (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U:, yes, it is an old way of spelling, but it is also the typical British way of spelling the word, as you can see here. British spellings are permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, this spelling was also selected for aesthetic reasons. Some of the sources used in the article actually spell it this way, and these sources date only to the 20th century. Besides, often we still find these archaic spellings used in Modern English, such as in Encyclopaedia Britannica. There are other examples, besides these. Davidbena (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Interesting and original topic, will catch attention, hook citation needs proper location (citation attached to the prime sentence / maybe the cite two sentences on will do but this needs work by someone with access to the sources...) While the material does not raise plagiarism red flags, there is one rather long direct quote - it's properly cited, but still a significant percentage of the total; no other major issues. QPQ not required, as seems to be just second DYK. Will await article tweaks. SeoR (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling my attention to this. I'm not sure what the actual suggestion was concerning the cited (quoted) reference. Was it to shorten the quoted excerpt? As for the hook, it is repeated in the section "Leather processing", but, this time, I've added the sources too, in a footnote.Davidbena (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Davidbena, and yes, that will do - it is a basic requirement that the hook sentence be cited directly, even if that would not be required for any non-DYK purpose, and this you have now done. I suspected that the existing nearby reference would do, but it's a very specialised source, and I could not check any other way. Re. the excerpt, I mentioned it as an admin reviewing the item later *might* raise a question, but I think it is not a blocking problem. I now release the item, and I am sure it will get attention as a DYK; it's a fascinating article. SeoR (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting and original topic, will catch attention, hook citation needs proper location (citation attached to the prime sentence / maybe the cite two sentences on will do but this needs work by someone with access to the sources...) While the material does not raise plagiarism red flags, there is one rather long direct quote - it's properly cited, but still a significant percentage of the total; no other major issues. QPQ not required, as seems to be just second DYK. Will await article tweaks. SeoR (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)