Template:Did you know nominations/Behind a Mask

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 97198 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Behind a Mask

(

)

... that the pseudonomously published and sensationalist novella Behind a Mask, when republished, inspired a reexamination of Louisa May Alcott's work as more than children's pieces, like Little Women?

5x expanded by Rborgo (talk), Sadads (talk). Nominated by Sadads (talk) at 01:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC).

Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Requirements Office Sadads (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Please note that Footnote 8 does not open to an article by Judith Fetterley, but to "Trance-Formations: Mesmerism and "A Woman’s Power" in Louisa May Alcott's Behind a Mask" by Theresa Strouth Gaul. No QPQ needed for first-time nominator. The article is exceptionally well written, but the hook is ungrammatical and hard to understand. Would the page creator like to suggest another hook, or should I? Yoninah (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes! I fixed the link to the Fetterley article so it should lead to the correct article now. I also cleaned up the hook a bit. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs attention. Rborgo (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Don't know what you think is ungrammatical...but can see several points of possible confusion, have refined:
ALT1: ... that the pseudonomously published and sensationalist novella Behind a Mask, inspired a critical reevaluation of Louisa May Alcott's corpus as containing more than children's novels, like Little Women? Sadads (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sadads: the purpose of a hook is to "hook" readers' attention, not to summarize the article. That said, we can use your ALT1 — although I would suggest taming some of the big words, as follows:
ALT2: ... that Louisa May Alcott's sensationalist novella Behind a Mask, published under a pseudonym, inspired a critical reevaluation of her corpus as containing more than children's novels like Little Women? — or we could try something more "hooky", like:
ALT3: ~~... that Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women, also published thrillers and mysteries like Behind a Mask under a pseudonym?~~
ALT4: ... that one scholar suggests Louisa May Alcott wrote the sensationalist novella Behind a Mask to subvert the fantasy of the perfect "little woman"?
Let me know what you think, or what else you'd like to suggest. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I get the point of hooks (the reason I respond like this, is that the comment is kindof bitey: it doesn't bother me too much, but when I first saw it, I had a bit of an emotional backlash; it would have been better to explain why you think the hook wouldn't work, rather than (unintentionally?) attack a WP:Good Faith effort as holistically bad). I like ALT4 (added a link to the quote, to help readers recognize the play on words), Alt3 would be fine as well. Sorry it took so long for me to respond: last couple weeks have been hectic (with projects like this meetup and Thanksgiving (United States). Hope you have a good week, and look forward to the article going on the front page! Sadads (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for lecturing you. I also like ALT4, but I can't approve my own hook. Could another reviewer please sign off on this? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Yoninah: No worries: lecturing is fine: its how we learn; it just needs to be grounded in evidence\, that way it feels rational for the reader (instead of snarky). Hope you have a great day and thank you for the energy in reviewing and the hooks!Sadads (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Double-checked that article is new enough when nominated, expanded over fivefold and long enough. It's neutral, well sourced and cited, and free of close paraphrasing, copyright and plagiarism issues. Hooks 3 and 4 are both short enough and interesting but striking ALT3 in deference to preferences of others (even though I like 3 more). ALT4 is accurate and supported by an in-line citation of a reliable source. QPQ accepted because Sadads did a review even though unable to close since an ALT was suggested so another independent reviewer was needed. Please do another review for your next DYK nomination, Sadads. This is good to go. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 21:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)