Talk:Iowa Authors and Their Works

Women in Red: Women writers & their works (2021)

This article was created or improved during the Women writers & their works edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in September 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

United States: Iowa Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Iowa Authors and Their Works appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1918 book Iowa Authors and Their Works was an attempt to document all Iowa authors and their writing starting from 1880?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iowa Authors and Their Works.

Wikipedia

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the 1918 book Iowa Authors and Their Works was an attempt to document all Iowa authors and their writing starting from 1880?
Alt1 ... that what was said in 1923 to be the "most comprehensive and useful work of Iowa bibliography" was first published in parts?

Reviewed: Matt Zabitka

Created by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The alt was added by Victuallers, but I'm not entirely sure that works because that comment was made in 1923. Maybe something could be added to it and the article about the 1939 Pulitzer Prize for History winner Frank Luther Mott saying it? SL93 (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're wrong. You are confusing the later quote with the idea that it was first published in parts years before. You can quote what was said about it in 1923, in 1939, or in 2021, but it doesn't change that it was first published in parts. However this was only a suggestion so I'm OK for you to strike it out but I would like it to be for a valid reason. You may decide to strike out my hook suggestion ,but it was still "first published in parts". Victuallers (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Victuallers You completely misunderstood me. I'm not confusing anything. I'm only referring to the quote "most comprehensive and useful work of Iowa bibliography" due to the fact that the quote is from 1923. That means I don't think we should be quoting it when the 1923 quote is old and may not be true today. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, sorry, I did misunderstand you. Although I see the quote marks saying "it was said that". But I can see that you might want to add more caveats than just the quotes and I have made one change Victuallers (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. ALT1 is acceptable to me now. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Concise and valuable article, initial hook is intriguing. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P1