Template:Did you know nominations/Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten's wedding cakes
- 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
No response to issues despite multiple pings in over a month; closing as unsuccessful.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten's wedding cakes
... that when Princess Elizabeth married in 1947 she received crumbs from Queen Victoria's 1840 wedding cake as a gift?Source: Crumbs make 107-year link. Miss F M Findrey of 2 Oak Terrace, Cheltenham has sent a packet containing crumbs from Queen Victoria's wedding cake to Princess Elizabeth as a wedding present. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000669/19471108/062/0003- Reviewed:
- Comment: This is my first time submitting a DYK nomination - apologies if I have got something wrong.
Created by BJCHK (talk). Self-nominated at 06:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC).
Article is new enough, long enough, does not appear to have been copied from elsewhere and is prolifically sourced using well formatted inline citations. I'd love to be able to approve this. However, a couple of things trouble me. The most obvious problem here is that the suggested hook is not about the wedding cakes of Elizabeth and Phil. To be frank, I was suprised enough to see the size and height of the main cake. And it is also of great interest that the couple were restricted because of post-war rationing etc. But putting that obvious problem aside, I don't see any evidence of the cakes (plural) being subject of any authoritative work or news source. It seems to be to be WP:OR (though very well done) to create a Wikipedia article about all the cakes, without demonstrating they have collectively been a subject of study, or interest by others. Unless maybe this is intended as a list article. I've raised the problem on the article Talk page. I'd welcome a second opinion on whether it's a valid topic at all. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
- The subject is notable. I remember seeing a documentary on the cakes. They interviewed many of the people involved in making them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the hook is so tangential to the article that it shouldn't be used, especially since there are so many possibilities, so I've struck it. I feel that Sionk is onto something with approaches such as be the size and height of the main cake (nevertheless less smaller than it might have been due to the rationing and ingredient shortages); a valid use of Victoria might be the dozen cakes total for Elizabeth vs. over 100 for Victoria (again because of the shortages), or the sending of slices back overseas in thanks for the supplied ingredients from there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- The subject is notable. I remember seeing a documentary on the cakes. They interviewed many of the people involved in making them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- @BJCHK: Still with us? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The nominator hasn't edited since October 28 and did not respond to any comments on this nomination as well as a ping. Unless they return or another editor adopts this, there does not appear to be a path forward for the nomination at this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
