Template:Did you know nominations/Royal christening gown

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Yoninah (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Royal christening gown

(
)
Edward VIII wearing the gown at his christening.
Edward VIII wearing the gown at his christening.
  • ... that the original royal christening gown, created in 1841, was worn by sixty-two royal babies over 163 years? Source: "The dress was worn by 62 royal babies over the course of its 163 years of royal service. Five monarchs have been baptized in the gown, beginning with Victoria and Albert's first son, the future Edward VII." ([1])
    • ALT1: ... that the royal christening gown, created in 1841, was inspired by the wedding dress of Queen Victoria? Source: "The gown had been inspired by Queen Victoria's own wedding dress, and was made from white silk with a handmade lace overlay." ([2])
    • ALT2: ... that five British monarchs were christened in the same royal christening gown from 1841? Source: "Five monarchs have been baptized in the gown, beginning with Victoria and Albert's first son, the future Edward VII. George V, Edward VIII, George VI and the Queen all wore the white lace dress, as did Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince Harry." ([3])

Created by Mesmeilleurs (talk). Self-nominated at 23:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC). Previously nominated by DragonflySixtyseven (talk) at 16:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC).

Review

  • Note that I have made a few changes to the article, but none that I see as sufficiently major to render me an unobjective reviewer.
  • Article is long enough and was nominated (twice!) the day it was created, so meets eligibility criteria 1 and 2
  • Suitable references are included to support all the proposed hooks and these facts are cited and referenced in the article. Interesting to a broad audience is subjective, but a gown in use for 163 is unusual and there are plenty of people fascinated by everything Royal, so it is my opinion that eligibility criterion 3 is satisfied
  • Article is not a stub, covers the topic adequately, but I am concerned that the lede is about only the British gown (and the title implies that is the only one) but the article goes on to discuss Swedish and Danish examples. Perhaps a broader lede then a section on the British gown and others on the Danish and Swedish gowns. Mesmeilleurs, what do you think?
  • Earwig rates 5.7% and the commonalities highlighted are brief phrases that are not going to support any copyright / plagiarism claim.
  • So, my only policy concern (eligibility criterion 4) is about the lede / targeting issue - is this about only the British gown, so change the title, or is it broader, so modify the lede / structure?
  • On eligibility criterion 5, I am unsure. The creator, Mesmeilleurs, has only one DYK credit and so is exempt from the QPQ requirement. However, the nominator in the other nomination, DragonflySixtyseven, does have more than five DYK credits. My instinct is that either this proceeds with Mesmeilleurs receiving the sole credit, in which case no QPQ is required, or if DragonflySixtyseven is to receive a nominator credit, a QPQ is needed. BlueMoonset, what do you think?
  • I need to go out now, will come back to this in a few hours and do the hook review, etc... but in the meantime, this is going to need some (fairly minor) work. Mesmeilleurs, I am sure this will make it to the front page so don't be discouraged. I almost went with but technically the structure / title issue and the (unusual) QPQ situation means that I see it as more than just "an issue" to address. EdChem (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • EdChem, my feeling is that the article creator should have a reasonable chance to nominate their own article, and I rather expect that Mandarax felt the same way: Mesmeilleurs created the article at 15:32, and DragonflySixtyseven nominated it 75 minutes later at 16:47. The enthusiasm is nice, but there are seven days to nominate a new article at DYK. I think I'd leave it to Mesmeilleurs as to whether the nomination credit should be shared with DragonflySixtyseven, and that if so (and DragonflySixtyseven wishes credit) DS would indeed need to provide a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for DragonflySixtyseven to share nom credit if they want. I'm also happy to make any changes, etc. so all the criteria are satisfied. Just let me know what I need to do! Thanks, MesmeilleursSay Hey! 11:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I just re-arranged the article a little so it wasn't biased towards the British gown, hopefully this is better? I was a little unsure as for what to put in a general intro so it's a bit basic, but I think it's more along the lines of the discussed "broader lede". Also, maybe we could change the hooks to specify that it's the UK gown (e.g. "… that the British royal christening gown was […]")? Also, if DragonflySixtyseven doesn't indicate they want to share nom credit shortly, I'm happy to just proceed with myself as sole nomination credit. Thanks, MesmeilleursSay Hey! 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Did a QPQ on "beryllium-8" (if that one's insufficient, I've got others). DS (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Mesmeilleurs, I like the rearrangement, but I do have an issue with the lede stating that there are three families presently using them and then listing four. Also, changing it to four and adding the Dutch to the lede would mean a reference stating that there are, in fact, only four in use would be needed. I'd make the into more general and present the ones we have as examples without asserting how many there are. I agree on modifying the ALTs to include mention of "British". EdChem (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was unaware at the time that Piratesswoop had added a section on the Dutch gown, and they unfortunately forgot to update the intro. I noticed and I've generalised it, hopefully it's better now. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 17:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thanks, Mesmeilleurs. I've made a couple of tweaks, I hope you don't mind.  :) EdChem (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated ALTs

I have struck all the original ALTs as some need modification due to the change in the article focus, and as none incorporate reference to the proposed picture. I am listing modified versions that seem to me to fit with the intent of the originals:
Christening of the future Edward VIII
Christening of the future Edward VIII
Mesmeilleurs and DragonflySixtyseven, I have listed and modified ALTs above given the changed focus of the article. These are suggestions so any tweaks / modifications / objections, etc, please identify or just go ahead and change. I'm not sure about the italicising around pictured, either. I don't think we can identify the picture as Edward VIII as he was, at the time of his christening, His Highness Prince Edward of York. I added "to date" to ALT2a as both Charles, Prince of Wales, and Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, were christened in the 1841 gown and so five monarchs is true now but a total of seven seems likely. Comments / Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not 100% confident in the PD nature of that photo, I should point out. I know it was published in Edward VIII's coronation book in 1936, and it's plausible that it was published in the 1890s, but I'd really like some proof. (And Pocock died in 1952, so it's not PD-70 yet.) DS (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I've removed that image as the PD status is unclear and have uploaded another, Edward and George Christening.jpg. I got this from the National Portrait Gallery website which allows some images to be used non-commercially on a Creative Commons license, and this one was covered, so I licensed it and uploaded it. It's Edward VIII holding his brother Prince George, Duke of Kent wearing the gown. Of course, we could also submit the nomination without a photo too, if it's too much of a hassle. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 17:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
By identifying the photographer as Frederick Ralph, and specifying that he died in 1919, you have revealed that the photo is public domain in almost all nations (including the USA). This supersedes the "CC-non-commercial" license (Mr. Ralph certainly never agreed to have his work licensed as "Creative Commons", since he died over 80 years before it was invented), and I will now transfer it to Commons. DS (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Prince George held by his brother, the future-King Edward VIII
Prince George held by his brother, the future-King Edward VIII
DragonflySixtyseven, thanks for pointing out the licensing / PD issue. I've re-stated the ALTs with the new image – comments / changes welcome, as before, from both of you. EdChem (talk) 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary: As far as I can see, this nomination meets all the criteria for a main page appearance. The article was new enough, long enough, and policy compliant. The hooks are neutral and cited, and I think will be interesting to enough people, especially those with fascination for babies or royalty. D67 has satisfied the QPQ requirement. The image is PD. My only uncertainty is the hook: which to use, what bits to italicise, can it be shortened and made hookier, and what caption to use. I am going to request input at WT:DYK, but am ready to tick with a hook chosen. EdChem (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help on the nomination and the article, EdChem; I really appreciate it. (And everyone else too!) I’m personally inclined towards ALT0a, or maybe a combination of ALT0a and ALT3a? I think it sounds more impressive and eye-catching to say ‘163-year history’ rather than ‘between 1841 and 2004’, but I think the general wording of ALT3a is better than ALT0a. Maybe something like: “… that one royal christening gown was worn by 62 babies (including Prince George, Duke of Kent, pictured in 1903) over its 163-year history?” MesmeilleursSay Hey! 00:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Or even omitting George’s name from the hook and having something like “… that one royal christening gown (pictured in 1903) was worn by 62 babies over its 163-year history?”, which might be better if length was a concern. George is mentioned in the caption anyway. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 00:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewer needed to decide which hooks can be approved; it's been over three weeks without the previous reviewer, EdChem, ultimately choosing or approve any of the hooks. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright or plagiarism issues. A QPQ has been done. I like ALT0a, but would just use (pictured), or (pictured in 1903), leaving the image caption to tell the story. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, and while the article is very thorough, it does not have citations for every paragraph or for the lists of recipients per Rule D2. I have indicated the places where citations are needed. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've referenced all of the paragraphs that had Template:Citation needed on. Thanks, MesmeilleursSay Hey! 05:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, nice work. Restoring tick per Cwmhiraeth's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Royal_christening_gown&oldid=912951077"