Talk:Jane Cakebread

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. 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

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Jane Cakebread is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Jane Cakebread appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Jane Cakebread's 277 court appearances for drunkenness helped bring about the Inebriates Act of 1898?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Cakebread.

Wikipedia

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 by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Jane Cakebread in 1895

... that Jane Cakebread's 277 court appearances for drunkedness was a cause of the Inebriates Act of 1898? Source: The ODNB says "Her case and that of hundreds of other women in a similar position, led to the Inebriates Act of 1898..."]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joséphine Pagnier
- Comment: was based on pd sources but updated with modern sources - a Women in Red nomination for Women's History Month

Created by Rosiestep (talk) and Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 09:02, 2 March 2022 (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:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A very interesting hook, and very almost good to go. The hook is verified by ODNB source, but reference to the Inebriates Act 1898 only occurs in the article lead, not the body. I also inferred from the hook that only Cakebread's drunkedness led to the act, but the source and article show it was also down to others' drunkenness. Would a slight reword to clear this up be an improvement? MIDI (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @MIDI: what do yyou think now? Victuallers (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must've missed that {{ping}} somehow – sorry! Yep, all good!

MIDI (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P4 without image

Incorrect year?

Article talks about events in 1899 which happened to Ms. Cakebread; however, article also states she died 1898 (the year before). Seems contradictory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4DB4:6050:6973:78EA:F003:812E (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral

This article is not neutral towards its subject, and should not have appeared on the main page. It is based heavily on 19th and early 20th century sources that belittle this poor woman who suffered from substance abuse and likely also mental health problems, and was drawing on these sources that do not meet modern standards of journalism or research to continue to mock Cakebread. I've removed some of the worst of this text, but it really needs a proper review and further editing to get rid of the dated sources. As recent high quality sources exist, there's no excuse at all for this material. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvements @Nick-D:. However I think you will find that DYK is for articles that are in progress. They are not finished and never will be. No one is offering an excuse. I think you will find that "modern standards of journalism" can be found elsewhere (as you note) and its not very helpful to point out that others could do better. Where do you think this "proper review" is going to come from, if not from volunteers like you and me? Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon it needed a proper DYK review, that took into account the tone of the article and the sources being used. As a suggestion for improvements, the article could be more strongly framed around the legal and health systems Cakebread encountered. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: You are maybe not familiar with DYK reviews, tone is not a big issue and neutrality is just checked as not being biased not against some wider requirements of modern journalism... which I'm not familiar with. Hopefully you (or someone who understands these issues) can address the shortcoming you identify and remove the tag. Victuallers (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]