Template:Did you know nominations/The Three Brothers (jewel)
- 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) 16:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Three Brothers (jewel)
Painting of the Three Brothers jewel
- ... that The Three Brothers jewel (pictured) was owned by Jakob Fugger, the richest man in history, before it became part of the English crown jewels, only to be lost forever after Charles I tried to pawn it? Source: Strong 1966 [1]
- ALT1:... that the Three Brothers jewel (pictured) was part of the English crown jewels for more than 90 years, but was lost to history after Charles I tried to pawn it?
- ALT2:... that The Three Brothers jewel (pictured) was looted in a battle, sold to the richest man in history, worn by Elizabeth I, and lost when Charles I needed to raise money in a civil war?
Created by Arcaist (talk). Self-nominated at 21:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC).
The article is new enough, long enough, and well-written. I have not found any evidence of plagiarism, and everything is cited, although some of the sources are not the best - All About Jewelry and Susan's Gem Blog are referenced repeatedly, but don't provide any sources or evidence of expertise; I'd really like to see them replaced by more reliable sources, so far as is possible. The picture is excellent, clear at a small size, illustrates the jewel well, and should definitely be included when this is posted. For the hook, while you have a source stating that Fugger was the richest man in history, this is a disputed point, so if used should read "one of the richest men in history", as the article does. The original hook is pushing the length restrictions, so I prefer either ALT. Warofdreams talk 12:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- Reply Fantastic, thanks for the feedback. I eliminated most of the references to the blogs by adding higher-quality sources (although I feel comfortable citing a jeweller's blog on how big a stone looks, for example). Agree in terms of the hook, so that would leave us with:
- ALT3: ... that The Three Brothers jewel (pictured) was looted in a battle, sold to one of history's richest persons, worn by Elizabeth I, and lost when Charles I needed to raise money in a civil war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcaist (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is coming on nicely, ALT3 works well, and that's good work on finding higher-quality sources, just using the jewellers' blogs for description of the jewel, which I agree should be within their area of expertise. This does leave a few facts without citations, principally, that John the Fearless passed the jewel to his son, that the purchase by the English crown was recorded in the Inventory of Henry VIII, and about the jewel appearing in the "Ermine Portrait" and the 1605 portrait of James. I suspect these facts are in some of the sources already cited elsewhere? Warofdreams talk 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- All good points, thanks. I've added sources for Philip being John's sole heir, the Henry VIII inventory and the Ermine Portrait. Strong 1966 mentions in footnote 7 that there is a portrait of James that shows the jewel, but doesn't say exactly which portrait; I looked at surviving paintings of James until I found the one that fits. Does that need more of an explanation? I mean, there's no mistaking the jewel. -- Arcaist contribs • talk 17:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, this is now good to go. I'm happy with the citation to Strong, like you say, it's then clear which portrait is meant, and it's not something essential to the hook. Warofdreams talk 13:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, I came by to promote this, but I think ALT1 is worded in a much hookier way. I also think the image is hard to make out at thumbnail size, and now I see it's not even the jewel itself, but a painting. @Warofdreams: Did you review ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with any of the hooks, but don't know if Warofdreams had a strong preference. Not sure about your point with the picture—the jewel has been lost since 1645, so obviously there are no photos of it. The painting is the clearest contemporary image we have, and it's a scan directly from the museum. -- Arcaist contribs • talk 16:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Arcaist: the image is fine in the article, because it's larger and easier to make out. But at thumbnail size, it's hard to make out. When I first saw it, I wasn't even sure if the jewel was the whole thing or just a piece of it. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry I misunderstood you. It's also a featured picture candidate, but you might be right about the thumbnail size. This is my first nomination, so I'm happy with you guys making that call. @Warofdreams:, any strong preference for one of the hooks? -- Arcaist contribs • talk 21:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Arcaist: the reviewer has already expressed his preference for ALT3. I was just wondering why ALT1 was overlooked, and if it was even reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- ALT1 is fine, I mentioned in the review that I preferred either ALT (of the two which existed at the time). Warofdreams talk 14:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- All good points, thanks. I've added sources for Philip being John's sole heir, the Henry VIII inventory and the Ermine Portrait. Strong 1966 mentions in footnote 7 that there is a portrait of James that shows the jewel, but doesn't say exactly which portrait; I looked at surviving paintings of James until I found the one that fits. Does that need more of an explanation? I mean, there's no mistaking the jewel. -- Arcaist contribs • talk 17:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is coming on nicely, ALT3 works well, and that's good work on finding higher-quality sources, just using the jewellers' blogs for description of the jewel, which I agree should be within their area of expertise. This does leave a few facts without citations, principally, that John the Fearless passed the jewel to his son, that the purchase by the English crown was recorded in the Inventory of Henry VIII, and about the jewel appearing in the "Ermine Portrait" and the 1605 portrait of James. I suspect these facts are in some of the sources already cited elsewhere? Warofdreams talk 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
