Template:Did you know nominations/South Audley Street

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

South Audley Street

(
)

5x expanded by Ritchie333 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC).

  • Comment: the Queen is misleading to readers, and therefore fails accuracy. Caroline of Brunswick was certainly a queen (or queen consort), but readers wouldn't associate her with the Queen. Methinks the self-nomination might have more to do with a reversal of an unopposed year-old merge proposal on South Audley Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klbrain (talk • contribs)
"the Queen is misleading to readers" - well yes, that's the point of a hook, to drag readers in and look at the article. See Template:Did you know nominations/Trump Street and Template:Did you know nominations/A719 road for other "hookiness" of this nature (often endorsed by EEng). It is factually correct to call her the Queen as at the time of her return from Italy to London in 1820, Caroline was Queen Consort in law, even though George hated her and tried his best to kick her out of his coronation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's see: 2014 prose bytes, expanded just today, no copyvios detected, AGF the offline sources, article is neutral, sufficient inline citations. If we can use a more accurate hook like this:
With that, good to go! ミラP 02:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Would the original hook be the kind of thing that is suitable for April Fool's Day? I haven't noticed DYK on April 1 up to now, so it's new to me - just seemed possibly the kind of thing that is true but not what readers will think it means. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't see why not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
A queen, of even the Queen, staying briefly in Mayfair hardly seems surprising, so I don't think that this is worthy of much promotion. This, incidentally, not to slight the great work Ritchie333 has done in expanding the South Audley Street page, which has indeed been enormously improved. Klbrain (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, so the Queen would be OK for the quirky slot, no need for April 1 because it would be true on its face even if misleading, which we allow in the quirky slot; and (on the other hand) it'a not amusing enough to waste an April 1 slot on it. But here's the problem: the reader has to have a fighting chance of finding out what the hook really means i.e. if he <ctrl>-Fs the string queen he should be able to land on the relevant passage. But that doesn't work with this article, the lady in question being termed a consort. So if the word queen can be worked into the artcile, I'd go with Alt0, but if not, perhaps
    ALT2 ... that the first multistorey car park in the City of Westminster opened in South Audley Street in 1962?
I know that's not the kind of hook one usually expects from me, but (a) I couldn't think of an even mildly obscene hook based on the article material; and (b) a hook about the first multistorey car park in the City of Westminster might paradoxically get readers to click just to see the source of something so dull. EEng 06:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I can't think of anything mildly obscene about multi story car parks. Actually, strike that, I can picture two teenagers "getting it together" with a couple of cans of Red Stripe and a smell of .... actually, I think I may be going off-topic somewhat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)