Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Mule scavenger

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mule scavenger

[edit]
(
)
  • Comment: There are two images but neither look good small and I think the hook works better without one.

Created/expanded by Violetriga (talk). Nominated by Violetriga (talk) at 01:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll work on some reviews soon to catch up for those owed. violet/riga [talk] 01:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Hook: Interesting, short enough, hook fact not stated directly. (You state 6 people killed and 50 injured in one mill, which is too little to draw a generalization from [nitpicking, it also does specifically say children])
Article: Long enough, new enough. I feel uncomfortable with the large quote from a non-PD source; could it be worked into the text somehow? "Children were still working in cotton mills far beyond the mid-19th century." is uncited. Images are PD. Spotchecks are fine.
Summary: Hook fact, citing, and quote should be fixed up. Nominator still needs to review something. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. The hook does not say any specific locations and does not make any generalised statements. Refs 1, 3, 4, and 5 all mention injuries/deaths.
  2. The large quote (from Trollope?) is from an 1840 book and the author died over 70 years ago. I'm rusty on the exact laws but thought that made it out of copyright.
  3. "Children were still working..." does not need a citation as it is implied by the death of a child noted previously in the text ("6th of March 1865 ... Joseph Foden about 13 years of age") which has been cited.
  4. Reviews have been done, with more to come.
violet/riga [talk] 15:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. By leaving out the location it is implied that it was commonplace, which I would define as a generalization.
  2. Yes, Trollope. WorldCat notes a 2007 publication date; don't know if it was previously published.
  3. I'd still cite it.
  4. It's better to provide diffs for the reviews, or a link (I know you've reviewed / are reviewing Love in Perth, but you could theoretically use it for another nomination)
Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. But it was commonplace, as proven by the other sources.
  2. That ISBN was for a newer version of the book - I've removed the ISBN number now.
  3. I will when I have a better citation.
  4. I've reviewed literally hundreds of DYKs - it's about time for me to get a few freebies! Joking, but I've done a few recently anyway.
violet/riga [talk] 16:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I will pass this before going to bed. I will count your review of Love in Perth as the QPQ for this article, and ask that you add the year of publication to the Trollope book in case other editors worry about the size of the block quote. A citation for the last sentence would be best, but I agree with your point; I think Robinson's book would be a good temporary solution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The sentence before the quote says "An 1840 novel by Frances Trollope...". I'll add the TR citation now. violet/riga [talk] 16:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Found two others instead. violet/riga [talk] 16:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mule_scavenger&oldid=829237198"