Template:Did you know nominations/Dolores (Ziegfeld girl)

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 Fuebaey (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dolores (Ziegfeld girl)

(

)

... that Ziegfeld girl Dolores (pictured) was described as the first celebrity clothes model?

ALT1:... that Dolores (pictured) was credited with inventing the "blank hauteur" of the modern fashion model?
ALT2:... that Dolores (pictured) was described by Florenz Ziegfeld, Jr. as "The loveliest showgirl in the world"?
Reviewed: Asilo de San Vicente de Paul

5x expanded by Philafrenzy (talk). Self nominated at 20:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC).

interesting article, well illustrated, on good sources (offline accepted AGF). Hook: fine but saying a bit too little. Perhaps add Ziegler girl? ALT1: you have to want to know what "blank hauteur" means to click. Perhaps add "unsmiling". (I still don't know what it means, btw.) ALT2: anybody could name his favourite that, I prefer the others. - Do you hate infoboxes? - I would prefer the pic showing more costume (added). I think the article could easily move to GA and up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda. I don't hate info boxes, I will add one. Amended the first hook. I agree the second hook is cryptic which is why I made it only second. Agree anyone could name a favourite but being named as a favourite by Ziegfeld is better than me naming a favourite if you are a model. Are you reviewing the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

yes ;) - original hook and dress image preferred, - so good we don't need to think about improving the other hooks, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you but there is this: ALT3:~~... that Tudor Wilkinson gave Hermann Göring a painting in exchange for freeing his wife Dolores (pictured) from a Nazi internment camp?~~ Philafrenzy (talk) 12:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, mentioning Nazi always attracts extra attention, but I hesitate to link two men in a hook about a woman, gender gap, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with any of them but here is another idea where she is the active party: ALT4:~~... that Ziegfeld girl Dolores (pictured) helped the French Resistance in Paris during the Second World War?~~ Philafrenzy (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good one but needs more precise sourcing. In ref 32, LA Times obituary, I read that a memoir was written. It's given as source for details I don't see it it. Also there's this "according to", - do we have to take that to the hook? Would be not so good. - If we take it, we can drop World War, - Resistance is enough, I think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full NYT obit but from my (extensive) researches nobody wrote a memoir about Dolores including herself. She was not literary though her husband was. What specifically does the NYT say? Drue Tartière is the source for the resistance work. She is specific about Dolores and her husband helping and the book is viewable online at Internet Archive. It's ref 33. I think it needs WW2 for context. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting closer. (NYT?) I was not clear, I meant the Tartière memoir. Please get ref 33 right behind the fact of Dolores and her husband being active in the resistance, and find a was to clarify that being a Ziegfeld girl was one war earlier in her life, not at the same time. Nothing wrong about mentioning her husband, and it would be great to have "according to a friend's memoir" if that is the only source, - yes I know only 200 chars ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ref 33 is right behind the stated hook fact Gerda. I don't think we need to add "according to" etc as we try to keep hooks pithy - the details are all in the article. ALT4a:~~... that fashion model Dolores (pictured) helped the French Resistance in Paris during the Second World War?~~ Philafrenzy (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

New day. Sorry, I don't see any ref behind the sentence "In fact, according to the memoirs of Drue Tartière, Dolores and Tudor Wilkinson were both heavily involved in the resistance." which is the hook "fact" for me. How about ALT5:~~... that Dolores, the star of the Ziegfeld Follies from 1917 (pictured), helped the French Resistance in Paris during the Second World War?~~

You have two options: proceed in that direction, then you will need a new reviewer, or stick with my approval of the original hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It was behind "She wrote that a short wave radio had been concealed at 18 Quai d'Orleans so that the Resistance could communicate with London, and machine guns were hidden behind the fireplace and elsewhere in the apartment." But I have put it in the earlier sentence too. Is it a rule that you can only approve one hook? Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The rule is that I can't review a hook a created myself. I have been told so several times and don't need another occurrence ;) - The other rule is that the citation has to be right behind the fact (I understand: when it's mentioned the first time, not only somewhere later), thanks for doing so. It doesn't hurt to repeat a citation, nor to introduce it early. If you don't like it there you can remove it when DYK is over ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am getting confused now. Could you strike the ones that are no good in your opinion. It's OK to approve with multiple hooks isn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't strike because what I don't like could be appealing to someone else, including you. I like the original hook, tweaked by adding Ziegfeld girl, as it appears now. If that is ok with you I repeat the valid approval. If you want another one, you will have to find a different reviewer by adding the ref symbol for "DYK again". I can't approve a hook I created, and I won't approve one I don't like ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with the original approved hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

repet approval, strike alts,