Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Nowlin Savery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Annie Nowlin Savery

[edit]
(
)
ALT 1 ... that suffragist Annie Nowlin Savery was the first woman from Des Moines, Iowa to give a political lecture at the White House, in 1868?
  • Reviewed: Basil Cardew
  • Comment: The 1983 book that I used for the article stated that much of her early life was not written about. It looks like that hasn't changed.

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 00:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC).

*New enough.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Long enough.
  • In-line citations. However, I cannot read Remarkable Iowa Women. OK on good faith.
  • No close paraphrasing detected.
  • Neutral tone.
  • The hook is short enough, neutral, and hooky. However, User:SL93, I think "Savery was the first woman from Des Moines to give a political lecture at the White House, in 1868." would be even hookier?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that also, but I didn’t add it because I wasn’t sure if being the first woman from a certain city was significant enough for a hook. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think so, because it is the capital of Iowa, not a small town.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We can go with that hook. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, please add it to the nomination above.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The references for Remarkable Iowa Women, could be combined, pp. 108-112?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok. I added the hook and combined the book references. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s: Per Rule H2,, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at ALT1? Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why ALT1 hasn't been approved by someone yet. It's very straightforward. SL93 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The White House lecture hook is sourced offline, which is OK with DYK. But the time period, and delivering a lecture at the White House, might leave reviewers in want of an online source. I looked through the Des Moines newpapers available through our WP newspapers.com subscription. There's newspaper coverage on her from 1996, probably when she was nominated for the Iowa women's hall of fame. The coverage lists her highlights chronologically. The White House is not mentioned. But what it says is, "In January 1868, Savery became the first Des Moines woman to publicly speak out in favor of woman suffrage when she delivered a lecture at the Polk County Courthouse." Here's the clipping:"Annie Savery". The Des Moines Register. No. August 4, 1996.. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I will try to find an online source, but I thought that the original hook was perfectly fine. Stuff like this is why I'm done submitting my own created or expanded biographies. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The way I read the top of this nomination, is that Zigzig20s did give approval to the original hook. Do you see it that way, Yoninah? I read the source on that one. The sourcing on that runs through two paragraphs, but it's there. I think the original hook has already been approved. It's just that I think the reviewer was offering ALT1 as more hooky with the mention of the White House. But with the scrutiny going on at DYK these days, dropping the White House into a hook probably should be an accessible source. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I am the one who suggested ALT1. I see no problem with it.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: What is wrong with the first hook? Can you just approve it so this can move on? You said that it was hooky. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If we really need a new hook for whatever reason, I found an entire online book about her. I'm trying to find a mention of the White House. If I can't find it, I will change that part of the article to what Maile66 stated. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need a new hook. We just need to make sure the White House one has an online source. The hook itself is fine. — Maile (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Maile66: I deleted the White House sentence from the article. Everything else matches up online including in the book I just posted. I really just want the original hook, that was admitted to be "hooky", to be approved. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not as hooky as the other one, but it's fine. I approve it. Are we done?Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote ALT0, and aside from the unencyclopedic word "got", it is hooky. But when readers click on the article, all they will see is the same sentence, unexplained. I think you should add another line or two to explain why she "got into conflict" with her peers. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Or I could withdraw this because I predict that another "issue" will likely pop up. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? If I add the two sentences, will you un-withdraw it? Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm serious. I don't trust myself to add anymore without you or someone else coming along with another issue. I will un-withdraw it if it's completed by someone else, but I won't add anymore to the article if someone else comes along. SL93 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand that last sentence. And it seems to me you need to develop a tougher skin to make it at DYK, because other editors are always coming along and commenting, and then you have the whole group of admins over at ERRORS. But if you write a good, well-referenced article, you shouldn't have problems at all. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: You do realize that I have been participating at DYK for over 6 years and none of my hooks or articles have ever made it to ERRORS? It's not about needing a "tougher skin". It's about having better things to do than do stuff for a nomination that was originally approved over a month ago. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I can't promote a hook that will leave the reader wanting. Yoninah (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yoninah: I added a few more sentences about it. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Why don't you add an in-line reference about the White House, then that hook can get approved? If it was added to the article, there must be a reference surely?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: There is only an offline reference and apparently that is a problem. SL93 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Why would that be a problem? Is it in a book with a reputable publisher?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The publisher is reputable and the book itself is listed in places like this. I didn't say that it was a problem, but @Maile66: said above that it was. SL93 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why that would be a problem. Is there a specific policy against citing an offline reference in a DYK hook and if so, where is the policy please? You could send Maile66 scans of the specific passage I guess. When we review hooks, we are not required to ask for scans though.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't think there is a policy. I could scan the page, but I would have to check it out again from the library and that can't happen till next weekend. I just don't want to wait another week. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Zigzig20s:, @Yoninah:, @SL93: my apologies for causing this misunderstanding. Don't send me scans. I don't need to know if it's sourced or not. I only meant an offline source for the White House could be a problem if that hook was used on the main page. I didn't want SL93 in the position of getting a hook on the main page, only to have it yanked by someone with a hair up their nose about offline sourcing. DYK has no dictates about offline sources, but you know how things have been recently. Since that hook is not being used, offline sourcing is perfectly fine in the article. I have no problem with the sourcing in the article. Sorry to have caused all this stress. Personally, I think all nominators are on edge these days. The original hook has been approved, and the sourcing is online. Please promote it. — Maile (talk) 02:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like another editor objected to the first hook. The White House one is still better and I don't see why it shouldn't get promoted. Other editors throughout the process could always do a Resource Request if they really want to see the scan.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
If I'm following all of the above, Yoninah objected to the article not having enough explanation for the hook. That has all been corrected now by SL93. So there should be no problem. Promote the original hook, already. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Annie_Nowlin_Savery&oldid=878134161"