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 Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
... that a hat designed by Prince Albert(pictured left) was altered into the Albert shako(pictured right), which was in use in the regular British Army for 11 years? "he [Albert] took an interest in military uniform and helped design a more functionalhead-dress, the 1844 pattern shako" from: Spielmann, Marion Harry (1895). The History of "Punch". Cassell and Company. p. 216. and " ALBERT SHAKO, 1844-55" from: Cattley, Alex. R. (1936). "The British Infantry Shako". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 15 (60): 198. ISSN0037-9700.
ALT1:... that the Albert hat proposed by Prince Albert for the British Army was mocked in the press and modified into a shako, (pictured right)?"The press were quick to note this news and the Illustrated London News of 21st October 1843 (the next day) wrote "The Proposed New Infantry Cap. This new pattern cap has been proposed for our infantry; but public opinion has been so unequivocally expressed against it, that it is not likely to prove a popular substitution for the cap now in wear. It is neither soldierlike nor appropriate" from:Carman, W. Y. (1978). "1722. The Albert Hat of 1843". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 56 (227): 184. ISSN0037-9700. and "the Albert Hat which Punch converted to his uses and worked to death" from: Spielmann, Marion Harry (1895). The History of "Punch". Cassell and Company. p. 216.
Albert shako
ALT2:... that the British Army's Albert shako(pictured) was liable to come off in action so the field of the Battle of Chillianwala was covered with fallen headgear?"n the first year of the war the troops wore the ' Albert ' shako , a rather tall , hard hat , with a good peak . But they were liable to fall off , and the field of Chillianwallah five years before had been littered with them after the battle" from: Daniell, David Scott (1951). Cap of Honour: The Story of the Gloucestershire Regiment (the 28th/61st Foot) 1694-1950. G.G. Harrap. p. 182.
ALT3:... that during the Crimean War Colonel George Bell complained about his "abominable Albert [shako]"(pictured) upon whose leather top "a man may fry his ration beef at mid-day in this climate"?"The next thing I want to pitch aside is the abominable Albert, * as it is called, whereon a man may fry his ration beef at mid-day in this climate, , the top being patent leather to attract a 10 fold more portion of the sun's rays to madden his brain" quoted in: Figes, Orlando (2 June 2011). Crimea. Penguin Books Limited. p. 271. ISBN978-0-14-101350-3.
Overall: Expanded from 4,015 bytes to 18,915 bytes (or 463 words to 1,791 words). This isn't quite 5x... but it's also a new article... but the initial revision was split off from another article -- I'm not sure what the protocol is, but this seems like splitting hairs, especially when it's already been expanded so much. I don't think it would benefit the article to demand you bang out 300 words of unnecessary additional content to meet an arbitrary wordcount cutoff so I'm going to IAR and say this is fine.
As for hooks, I personally like ALT3 the best (by a lot), followed by ALT2, followed by ALT1. I think the nominator should choose which one they want to use, but the original is extremely boring. jp×g 08:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi jp, thanks for the review. Just to clarify: I split this article from a draft sandbox in my user page. None of this content has been in the mainspace before so it should be fine for the DYK rules. I am happy for any of the ALTs to be run - Dumelow (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know how the hell I missed that. I guess I don't even have to break a rule to say this looks fine, then! jp×g 08:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
.jpg)
Expanded from 4,015 bytes to 18,915 bytes (or 463 words to 1,791 words). This isn't quite 5x... but it's also a new article... but the initial revision was split off from another article -- I'm not sure what the protocol is, but this seems like splitting hairs, especially when it's already been expanded so much. I don't think it would benefit the article to demand you bang out 300 words of unnecessary additional content to meet an arbitrary wordcount cutoff so I'm going to IAR and say this is fine.