Talk:The Luck of Cumberland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | The Luck of Cumberland has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 2, 2026. The text of the entry was: Did you know  | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Location
The major question with this piece, of course, is where it now resides (assuming it hasn't met the melting pot). Sturmvogel 66, I know this is a long shot, but you didn't happen to see any mention of this while working on HMS Cumberland, did you? Or, from your other work on ship articles, would you have any idea what might happen to a piece like this after a ship is decommissioned? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not that I remember, but that was a while a ago. Gimme a couple of days to see if I can find anything. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have anything referring to the Luck, but there is a tradition to handing down such items to the next ship of the same name. I can only suggest searching through newspapers around the decommissioning and commissioning dates of her successor ships Cumberland and Cumberland. Although there is a book about the WWII-era cruiser mentioned in that ship's article that might have a reference as well. Finally, I can only suggest contacting the RN and asking what its status is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sturmvogel 66. That's helpful. I've sent the RN an email, and will look through the sources as well. Separately, regarding the 1902 ship, do you recall which are the most useful sources on it? I would like to put together a brief background section in this article. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hmm, Friedman's book on British cruisers is probably the best one for the history of the design, but I'd think that the various volumes of the British official history, Naval Operations by Sir Julian Corbett and Henry Newbolt would serve for her less-than-glamorous activities during the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sturmvogel 66. That's helpful. I've sent the RN an email, and will look through the sources as well. Separately, regarding the 1902 ship, do you recall which are the most useful sources on it? I would like to put together a brief background section in this article. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I don't have anything referring to the Luck, but there is a tradition to handing down such items to the next ship of the same name. I can only suggest searching through newspapers around the decommissioning and commissioning dates of her successor ships Cumberland and Cumberland. Although there is a book about the WWII-era cruiser mentioned in that ship's article that might have a reference as well. Finally, I can only suggest contacting the RN and asking what its status is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
- I had the same question; if we can't find a source about it, we could just say "The Cumberland was broken up for scrap in 1923; the ultimate fate or current location of the cup has not been reported in modern sources." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by JuniperChill (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
( )
The Luck of Cumberland
- ... that The Luck of Cumberland (pictured), designed by Herbert Maryon and executed by the Keswick School of Industrial Art, has been described as a "tour de force" and "a masterpiece"?
- Source: Bruce 2001, pp. 74–76: "Eighteen inches high without the plinth, it is a tour de force; a raised bowl twelve inches across bearing the hammer marks of the craftsman decorating the surface like spun silk, and the legend "The Luck of Cumberland" round its circumference, wording which evoked the heritage of ancient talismanic luck vessels in the locality. The lid, a masterpiece raised from the flat, has a ring of oak leaves".
- ALT1: ... that The Luck of Cumberland (pictured), designed by Herbert Maryon and executed by the Keswick School of Industrial Art, is made of more than 200 ounces of solid silver? Source: The Newcastle Weekly Chronicle: "This cup is of solid beaten silver, weighs over 200 ounces, stands 18 inches high, and is in the form of a loving cup with three handles."
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Henry Tracy
Usernameunique (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article is new enough, long enough, sourced and neutral. Earwig picks up 0%. Hooks are cited and interesting, i prefer ALT1. Pic is free, used and clear. QPQ is done. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Nominator: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
GA review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Luck of Cumberland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RadioactOlive (talk · contribs) 23:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks very much, radioactOlive! A nice surprise to check my watch list and see that not only had the review been opened, but also that it had been passed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I admit when I opened the review, I thought surely I'd have more comments, and yet I didn't. Good job on the article! radioactOlive(she/it)(talk) 02:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)