Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

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) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

(

)

Charles and Camilla in 2019

... that the coronation of Charles III and Camilla (pictured) is not expected to take place for several months? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/prince-charles-king-coronation-may-be-months-away
- ALT1: ... that despite it being announced in 2005 that she would not bear the title, Charles III's wife, Camilla, is to be crowned queen at his side (both pictured)? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/camilla-to-be-crowned-queen-beside-king-charles-iii-at-his-coronation
- ALT2: ... that anti-monarchist protests have been announced in the lead up to the coronation of Charles III and Camilla (pictured)? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2022/sep/13/king-charles-iii-northern-ireland-queues-view-queen-coffin-edinburgh-london-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-632053848f089a49070e5770#block-632053848f089a49070e5770
- ALT3: ... that King Charles III (pictured with Queen Camilla) wants his upcoming coronation to reflect Britain's religious and ethnic diversity? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/09/13/charles-coronation-prince-king-monarchy-when-plans-cost-living/
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zunda Towers
- Comment: There are plenty of potential hooks, and the ones I have chosen are not lined up in any particular order. I hope the reviewer(s) will weigh in to pick the hookiest one.

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 04:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC).

Hi, I am able to review this DYK nomination. This is my first QPQ, so I apologize in advance for any mishaps. I will say that I believe the ALT1 hook to be the most captivating. Do you have a preference? Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I am terribly indecisive and will gladly go with what you choose. Have fun with the review! Surtsicna (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I will likely review ALT1 or ALT3. As I am finishing up a GA review at the moment, I may not be able to complete this DYK nomination until Saturday. Thank you for your understanding, and sorry for any inconvenience. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I expected ALT3 to be considered the most bland! There is no inconvenience. Other editors are, as always, welcome to give their opinions/suggestions about the hooks and the article too. Surtsicna (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but ALT1 is expected, it takes a long time to plan, no one would be able to pull it off over night. ALT3 isn't exceptional, I doubt there are many sensible world leaders today who wouldn't make the same claim, and ALT2 doesn't give the same 'fun fact' energy that DYK's typically do. The overlooming threat of the abolishment of the monarchy isn't appropiate for trivia.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The proposed hooks are all interesting in their own right, some more than others; I would not go so far as to disqualify all of them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, EmilySarah99! If I understood you correctly, you find the original hook (about scheduling) "expected", not ALT1. That leaves ALT1, the one about Camilla's role, as the best hook in your opinion, right? Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Surtsicna it appears I did get the numbers mixed around. I would say the one about Camilla being crowned is the most intersting, I'm just not entirely sure the announcement in 2005 was 'official'. From my understanding, it was only the Princess of Wales title she refused, not the Queen. And Unlimitedlead you were right, I shouldn't have been so negative. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You're good! I apologize for any miscommunication on my part as well. As for your first concern, it was actually announced a while back by Clarence House that Camilla would by styled as 'Princess consort.' Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Your evaluation is appreciated and I find your arguments rather convincing. I wonder how Unlimitedlead feels about ALT2. Other opinions very much welcome too. Surtsicna (talk) 07:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of all the potential hooks, I actually find ALT2 to be my least personal favorite. It just feels like an extra negative thing to be thinking about, especially in light of the Queen’s death, COVID, monkeypox, etc. If everyone else likes it though, I have no problem going with that one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not think many will view Camilla's coronation as being as negative as the COVID pandemic :D Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I see your point. I am horribly indecisive, so I will let the two of you decide which hook gets promoted. However, ALT1 and ALT3 are my personal favorites, if you want to keep that in mind. Thank you for your collaboration; I'll see you around! Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Independent voice: would suggest something like "... that the upcoming coronation of Charles III and Camilla has been planned under the codename "Operation Orb"?" or "... that the Stone of Scone will be transported to London for the coronation of Charles III and Camilla?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: All the hooks fit the criteria, but I especially like ALT3. Despite some objections to the hook's "interestingness," I find that it is more interesting than other hooks we've had in the past, and it just has a feel-good energy to it. I'm sure many readers of Wikipedia will be pleased to find out that Charles III plans to be more inclusive and respectful, especially in light of recent events. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Unlimitedlead and Surtsicna: I'm not sure I like either hook very much, if I'm being honest. ALT1 is cited to a press release, which strikes me as an immediate red flag – breathless media coverage of the royals means that something that doesn't have independent sourcing doesn't need to be piled in. ALT3, in addition to being a little dull, comes with the risk of appearing to whitewash perception of the royals. Not something we should have to care about in an ideal world, but the reputation of the monarchy is somewhat of an open question among editors and RSes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean in reference to ALT1. It is cited to an article by The Guardian and can be cited to a dozen more. Surtsicna (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Aha, gotcha – I've recited accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder why I didn't restore the tick – I'm sure that'll come back to me someday. My apologies :) ALT1 is good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)