A fact from Napoleon Diamond Necklace appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 October 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,632 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry 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.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles 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.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Catherine the Great was dead in 1796: the story about her wedding is erroneous. This article would be more comprehensible if people, notably Marie Louise, were given the names and titles they held in 1811-12. Pendoloques and briolettes merely need footnotes defining the terms, not redlinks — would the relevant encyclopedic article be diamond cutting?. The tiara belongs in this article, not in an article all by itself: think "encyclopedic treatment".--Wetman (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine the Great: Fixed. Odd that the Smithsonian Magazine would print something like that.
Titles: Fixed.
Terms: Footnoted.
Diadem: I intend to create a separate article on the tiara in the next few days. It has a different provenance and will obviously be described differently, so an amalgamation of the two would be a bit pointless.
Thanks for the points, this was mostly a rough, but I figured I'd put it up early to see what comments I'd garner. Looks like it worked! :) GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 18:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From further examination, I'd say that the curator got mixed up and was in fact referring to Catherine Pavlovna of Russia. But without secondary confirmation, the anecdote will have to stay removed. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 22:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions the diamonds are "mine cut" which is a link to mine cut, and that article makes no mention of something called "mine cut". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.184.177 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an old style of diamond cut, no longer used. It could be looked at as the precursor to the modern brilliant cut. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 09:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
made importance=mid per gemology Accotink2 (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
