Jump to content

Talk:William McAndrew: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
nominating to be a GA
Assessment (GA/Low): Biography, +banner shell, +United States, +Chicago (Rater)
Tag: Reverted
Line 14: Line 14:


}}
}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=n|listas=McAndrew, William}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |living=no |1=
{{WikiProject Biography|class=GA|living=n|listas=McAndrew, William}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=GA |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Chicago |class=GA |importance=Low}}
}}

==Did you know nomination==
==Did you know nomination==
{{Did you know nominations/William McAndrew (educator)}}
{{Did you know nominations/William McAndrew (educator)}}

Revision as of 00:22, 21 December 2021

Former featured article candidateWilliam McAndrew is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 18, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 30, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William McAndrew, the superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, was accused of being an agent of George V, King of the United Kingdom?

Did you know nomination

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 without image by Theleekycauldron (talk22:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William McAndrew circa 1925
William McAndrew circa 1925

Created/expanded by SecretName101 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: A very substantial and well-formed article on an interesting figure; the things that went on... Developed as draft 31/12/20-14/8/21, that's patience - and so fully OK on timing. Well-cited, incl. every para of body text. Neutral. Required some time with Earwig but two notable numbers did not flag any substantive issues. While not included in the nomination, hook facts are well-cited in the text. Hooks are decent, the "unpatriotism" should catch eyes, and the "spying for King George" is even better. QPQ is done, with some depth, so AOK there. Approved to go. SeoR (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P1 without image

Ethan Allen malaprop

Friends, We are told in the section on McAndrew's trial that one of his questioners was laughed at for taking issue with the exclusion from Chicago's history curriculum of Ethan Allen, to whom the questioner attributes Nathan Hale's great last words. I think it plain that the ridicule spoken of resulted from the malapropism by one supposedly invested in historical education, not from the obscurity of Ethan Allen; I suppose Allen is more of a local figure, but whether or not McAndrew's questioners knew of him, one doubts that the suggestion of his inclusion would have elicited laughter more than the obvious confusion of the names. I take this to the discussion, because I do not have the book cited by the writer of this fact, and I do not wish to change the content of the assessment to reflect my observation if the author of the source actually believes & states that the ridicule came from Allen's minor status. I have added a link to the article on Hale, specifically to the section on his death, but I humbly ask you what is to be done with the remaining wording. "The malapropism for Nathan Hale caused ridicule . . . Some unfamiliar with Hale but familiar with Allen laughed because they thought Allen too minor a figure . . . " But again, I rather doubt this second point. Would anyone happen to have the book? Twozenhauer (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twozenhauer: Good catch. Found a contemporary newspaper article that indeed confirms that part of the reason for amusement in the gallery was apparently the fact that the quote was Nathan Hale's, not Allen's. SecretName101 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent find, my friend. The article has been well edited by the addition of the other gentleman's correction. Thank you so much for your attention to my quibble! Twozenhauer (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]