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) 20:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Overall: Added one "cite needed" where cite is missing; otherwise, citations are good. Bibliography is a stunning tribute to thorough research. I have one picayune observation about the hook—"given" implies irrevocable usage, but the article uses "lent", which implies a revocable loan. I added an ALT1 because I think the fact that she did tweak society's nose by writing about sexuality may be the most important component of her feminism. I realize these are small quibbles for an article resulting from such extensive research, and I anticipate signing off on this.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. If I give you the use of x for your lifetime or lend it then what is the difference? I cannot see any substantial difference. However, you are allowed to amend the hook, but I have done it for you. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Gifts are not repayable; loans are. There's the difference. A subtle shade of meaning.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well actually the paragraph got split - so cite repeated at end of first part, and tag removed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
To me, and I have been in touch with several Jacson scholars, it was her tightrope walking around society's disapproval of women's sexuality and education, that makes her notable. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC) I would like to elaborate on that. Maria Jacson was astute enough to see what happened to other outspoken women, like Wollestonecraft and Barbault, and the baclash against the education of women that was starting to occur in the Anti-Jacobin movement. She was also a pragmatist, she wanted to educate but not in a way that would open her to ridicule, and therefore lose credibility and defeat the purpose. She tried to walk a tightrope but also took the precaution of publishing anonymously, as did many women at that time.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I also see there is an X against adequate sourcing - I think what you see here is pretty well what there is, i have carried out an exhaustive literature search, and as I mention above consulted with published authors on the subject.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I do believe I meant that to refer to the one "cite needed". I repeat, I am awed and amazed by the breadth of your research. Sometimes this template isn't too handy, but it helps me organize my review.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Well thank you, it is part of tackling the much wider area of Women in Botany. Ah, I get it - you put another {{cn}} tag on every time I split a paragraph, I see it is a FA requirement - fixed. Happy International Women's Day everyone.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I have now have no objections to this article, and feel it is GTG. However, a third party review is needed for ALT1. I do hope it happens timely, so that this may run for Women's History Month.Georgejdorner (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This looks good, but I did find a possible confusion -- the citations for " Kelley 2012, Botanizing Women" actually link to a book entitled "Kelley, Theresa M. (2012). Clandestine marriage botany and Romantic culture", of which Chapter 4 is titled "Botanizing Women". Could it possibly state "Chapter 4: Botanizing Women" to make things clearer? Also, I would suggest changing "by" to "when" (see ALT1 and ALT2): "by" sounds like she may have avoided the topic, when in fact she discussed it fairly extensively. Hooks for ALT1 and ALT2 are confirmed by Shteir 1996. Excellent article! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the hook would read better with a bit more elucidation:
ALT3: ... that Maria Elizabetha Jacson was wary of offending her society's conventions by writing about the sexual classification of plants? Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've been pinged but sure what to do here. I liked the hook as was and it was approved. This new hook is OK but its so so hooky. Victuallers (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I'll promote one of the approved hooks. Yoninah (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Added one "cite needed" where cite is missing; otherwise, citations are good. Bibliography is a stunning tribute to thorough research. I have one picayune observation about the hook—"given" implies irrevocable usage, but the article uses "lent", which implies a revocable loan. I added an ALT1 because I think the fact that she did tweak society's nose by writing about sexuality may be the most important component of her feminism. I realize these are small quibbles for an article resulting from such extensive research, and I anticipate signing off on this.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This looks good, but I did find a possible confusion -- the citations for " Kelley 2012, Botanizing Women" actually link to a book entitled "Kelley, Theresa M. (2012). Clandestine marriage botany and Romantic culture", of which Chapter 4 is titled "Botanizing Women". Could it possibly state "Chapter 4: Botanizing Women" to make things clearer? Also, I would suggest changing "by" to "when" (see ALT1 and ALT2): "by" sounds like she may have avoided the topic, when in fact she discussed it fairly extensively. Hooks for ALT1 and ALT2 are confirmed by Shteir 1996. Excellent article! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the hook would read better with a bit more elucidation: