Talk:Dorli Rainey

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 SL93 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at the age of 84, Dorli Rainey was pepper-sprayed by police at a 2011 Occupy Seattle protest, making her a symbol of the Occupy Wall Street movement? Source: “ The loose anti-corporate movement known as Occupy Wall Street, which emerged two months earlier at a park in Lower Manhattan, had spread by then to cities across the United States and abroad, including Seattle, to protest economic inequity.

  “Occupy Seattle had taken over the intersection of Fifth and Pine,” Ms. Rainey said. “I’m a member, so I went over.”

  Shortly after she entered the fray, police officers doused her with pepper spray while trying to disperse the crowd. Fellow protesters rinsed her face with milk to ease the sting, and a news photographer took a striking picture of the 84-year-old Ms. Rainey staring, unbowed, straight into the camera.

  The image spread quickly on the news and on social media, making Ms. Rainey for a time a global symbol of the largely youth-driven Occupy movement.”

  The New York Times

  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/1996 Biak earthquake

Created by Thriley (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 16:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC).

• I’m sorry Thriley, I believe per rule 1d, this is ineligible since it’s currently already been featured at In The News. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: I didn’t know about that rule. So when she is off ITN, this nomination will be eligible? Thriley (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t believe so; see WP:DYKCRIT. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it is ineligible according to this: “ An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". (Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not count.” Her name is not a bold link on the front page. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Previously I’d been told an ITN feature excluded eligibility but if a reviewer sees it otherwise, so much the better. The guidance is a little murky and seems out of date to the way MP is currently formatted. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t make any sense. Her name will be off RD in a few days at most. If I waited til after that, then it would be an acceptable DYK? Thriley (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, my phrasing was unclear. My understanding is basically that if it’s already been featured on main, it’s excluded from DYK; however maybe a reviewer will see it differently (I am not going to review, having been the ITN nominator—I was just trying to save someone some time but I agree with you that it’s ambiguous.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From what I have seen, as long as an article was not a bold link on the front page, it can go on DYK. Gerda Arendt routinely nominates articles to DYK that have been on RD before their nomination. Gerda, isn’t this correct? Thriley (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent deaths aren't boldlinks – as I'm sure Bloom6132 can testify, RD is not disqualifying for DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you, Leeky! Thriley (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron is correct – RDs are indeed eligible for DYK. In fact, 79 of my 206 DYK expansion credits since June 2020 have previously appeared on the Main Page as an RD. The footnote accompanying Rule 1d links to the 2014 discussion establishing the consensus that such nominations are eligible. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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:
• Other problems: - I made some copyedits to the hook :)

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I can take this one – nice job, Thriley! What an awesome woman :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you again. This is really all the suburb work of Silver seren! Thriley (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)