Jump to content

Talk:A Few Words About Breasts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process

[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: The article is OK. It would be better if you could add a brief summary of essay in article..

Gazal world (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Yoninah (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: I'm a DYK newbie so QPQ does not apply (at least as I understand it).

Created by Hobbesy3 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article created and nominated within time. Copyvio checks out. Article is long enough.
  • ALT0 is referenced to this cite. Is "infuriated" an adequate summarization here (other than being a catchy one)?
  • ALT1 is referenced to a book I cannot access. Whatever is visible in the preview on Google books does not help. Accepted in good faith.
  • As also suggested on the talk page, adding a small section on the essay itself would be a good idea.
DTM (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, DTM. Here's the source I used for ALT1: "Arnold Gingrich, who had been one of [Esquire's] two founding editors and was by 1972 its exalted publisher, had a rule about four-letter words. They were forbidden. Nora was told to excise 'they are all full of shit.' She refused to do so....Gingrich, to the dismay of the staff, folded. Other Esquire writers complained. Why did Nora get to use a four-letter word when they not only were told not to but had them snipped from their articles? Gingrich had no answer. He could not say that ordinary rules did not apply to the extraordinary Ms. Ephron. For the next issue, he reinstated the rule." (She Made Me Laugh 94-5)

As for the word choice of "infuriated a rabbi" in ALT0, I read the tone of Hertzberg's letter as being fairly hostile, but would "irked a rabbi" feel more adequate to you? (Hobbesy3 (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I have added a comma to ALT1 for accuracy. (Hobbesy3 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hobbesy3, thanks for the explanation. I will leave 'infuriated' as it is. However just one more issue, you have used the figure "3567" in ALT0 but that number isn't used in the article. Please make sure the number is also in the article and properly referenced if it is to be used in the hook. DTM (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the only source I could find for the word count (which, like page count, is not usually mentioned in secondary sources) is here: "Ephron overstates and understates wherever possible. For effect. Look at the title. A few words? There are more than 3,600 of them!" (""Why’s this so good?" No. 56: Nora Ephron and the thing about breasts"). I have added this to the article with an inline citation, and modified the hook accordingly. Thanks again, DTM. -Hobbesy3 (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. gtg DTM (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Few_Words_About_Breasts&oldid=1197172530"