Template:Did you know nominations/Cullands Grove
- 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 SL93 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cullands Grove[edit]
Culland's Grove
... that when the contents of Cullands Grove were auctioned in 1832, they included 370 dozen bottles of wine?
- Reviewed: SS Selah Chamberlain
Created by Philafrenzy (talk) and Whispyhistory (talk). Nominated by Philafrenzy (talk) at 23:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC).
Interesting, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed and a good illustration. - Sorry, I don't find the hook interesting if we don't get the idea that it was a collection of high-quality wines. Open to other ideas as well, for example it seems early for banquet guests being able to watch the preparation of their meals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- How about
- ALT1... that in 1832, the contents of Cullands Grove for sale included 370 dozen bottles of wine, two Shetland ponies, a fire engine, and two humane man traps? Whispyhistory (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Entering quirky territory ;) - I confess to be not impressed by 2 ponies, - how about staying serious about wine, worth more than a quarter of the total. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Shetland ponies are a little out of place in Middlesex but how about:
- ALT2... that when the contents of Cullands Grove were auctioned in 1832, the 370 dozen bottles of wine sold accounted for over a quarter of the sale proceeds?
- ALT3... that the guests at banquets at Cullands Grove were able to view their dinner being prepared from a gallery above the kitchens? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I like those better, especially ALT2, but ALT1 is also approved in case a quirky is needed. I'd add a year to ALT3, because it was more unusual back then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The year could be anything from 1787 to 1829 which was why I didn't include it. I was hoping the picture would indicate that this was not in the modern era. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- understand, thank you for explaining - don't be too sure the image will come, it's a bit pale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Better version of the print found. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- understand, thank you for explaining - don't be too sure the image will come, it's a bit pale. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The year could be anything from 1787 to 1829 which was why I didn't include it. I was hoping the picture would indicate that this was not in the modern era. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
