Template:Did you know nominations/Diamond Jubilee (horse)

Diamond Jubilee (horse)
Created/expanded by Tigerboy1966 (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 10:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that in 1900, the year before Edward, Prince of Wales ascended to the throne, he was the leading owner in British flat racing and his horse Diamond Jubilee (pictured) won the Triple Crown?



Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns. One fact in the hook is unsourced&mdash;article does not contain a reference to any source for "Edward, Prince of Wales finally ascended to the throne" and finally will need quoting (if sourced) or it should be removed as synthesis. The image does not have a valid copyright tag&mdash;author is known (Emil Adam d. 1924) but copyright tag PD-UK-unknown says can only be used if author is unknown -- Senra (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Finally" could be removed. I don't know how to do this, I just expanded the article. What would the correct tag be for the pic PD-Art, PD-US?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Finally" refers to the fairly common knowledge (hence no refs needed) that Prince Edward had to wait a long, long, long time before he could inherit the throne from Queen Victoria -- he held the title of Prince of Wales longer than anyone else (something so specific would need a ref, but I am not being that specific here). This is a DYK hook, and the word "finally" is meant to bring about "oh, that year..." in the reader's head. Just spice. Not crucial. Drop as needed. --PFHLai (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, hook image is fine, however ...
 * Image in article infobox is not correctly tagged; I do not know enough about DYK to advise if the article image needs to be correct nor do I know what tag to use though I would suspect if it was loaded on Wikipedia instead of commons and tagged PD-USDo not move to Commons I think (but don't know) that it would be fine
 * IMHO your "fairly common knowledge (hence no refs needed)" is incorrect for an international audience. I am happy if you wish to seek a 2nd independent opinion
 * -- Senra (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2nd independent opinion not necessary. Feel free to drop the word as needed.  Merry Christmas. --PFHLai (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact should still be in the article, with a reference. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this? I am not putting in a ref for 1900 being the year before 1901. --PFHLai (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg I've dropped the finally in the hook. No, there is no need to reference that 1900 is before 1901... although if you felt like making a pointy nomination you could do an article like "basics of chronology" or something.. Tick based on previous review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can certainly nominate such an article, but it's probably best that you or anyone but me write the article, Crisco 1492.   --PFHLai (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * LoL and LOL. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)