Talk:Charles III of Navarre

Did you know nomination

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 Cielquiparle (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that King Charles III's wife left him when she found four mistresses living in his palace? Source: Woodacre 2013, p. 79.
  • ALT0a ... that King Charles III's wife left him after she found four mistresses living in his palace? Source: Woodacre 2013, p. 79.
  • ALT1: ... that when King Charles III's sister became the queen of England, he sent her a manual about English royal coronations? Source: García Arancón 2014, p. 339
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mother (Meghan Trainor song)

5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Charles III of Navarre; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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: - maybe try thinking of more.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Surtsicna: Good article. Though i do wonder if you can think of any other hooks considering these feel pretty basic. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by that remark, Onegreatjoke. I suppose much of the appeal of the hooks is reliant on being able to associate the king's name with his modern namesake, Charles III of the United Kingdom, who might be best known for a mistress-wrecked marriage and who (rather than his sister) is about to be crowned king in England in May. It is why I have even considered suggesting 1 April for the original hook or early May for ALT1. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The proposed hooks, especially the first one, are extremely attention-grabbing. One could say they are a little too attention-grabbing... Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Following Unlimitedlead's comment, I would like to request another review of the proposed hooks. Surtsicna (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Hook review: ALT0 could be great: interesting and seemingly not neutral but that's the point of it. However, the source does not state it as a fact, more as a hypothesis. Could you reword the hook (and article) to still be grabby but reflect this? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That is very observant, Hameltion. That the discovery of the mistresses led to the royal rupture is indeed a hypothesis (promoted by three authors), but the source states their presence itself as a fact, i.e. the queen arrived, found a concubine-compromised court, and left. I think saying "when she found" instead of "because she found" addresses this; "after she found" might be even better. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

On rereading, you're right that not much change is needed, though I think "after" works better than "when" which implies an element of simultaneity. Struck other hooks. Might be fun to run this on May 6, but kind of bad taste. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)